Serious now, I think it's an important question how this works out for a 1d-stepwise-E1-model
But it is still 90% air Lozenge124...
Serious now, I think it's an important question how this works out for a 1d-stepwise-E1-model
Serious now, I think it's an important question how this works out for a 1d-stepwise-E1-model
Hey einsteen,
where did you read about the blueprints, out of curiosity? (I didn't know about them until I read your post)
where did you read about the blueprints, out of curiosity? (I didn't know about them until I read your post)
I was monitoring the debunky-boys forum JREF and the woooo-wooo Loose Change forum, two totally different forums. in one way or another I have the feeling that the JREf'ers are not really happy with this but I could be wrong because don't we all want to know what really happens wherever we are on the debunk-twoof scale... I still have to get the files
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 27 2007, 01:08 PM)
I was monitoring the debunky-boys forum JREF and the woooo-wooo Loose Change forum, two totally different forums. in one way or another I have the feeling that the JREf'ers are not really happy with this but I could be wrong because don't we all want to know what really happens wherever we are on the debunk-twoof scale... I still have to get the files
OK, cool. I just saw that 911blogger has a node on this but it didn't make the front page so I missed it:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7238
btw, 911research has an interface to view the drawings 1 by 1 in case you can't download the full thing:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
OK, cool. I just saw that 911blogger has a node on this but it didn't make the front page so I missed it:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7238
btw, 911research has an interface to view the drawings 1 by 1 in case you can't download the full thing:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 27 2007, 01:08 PM)
I was monitoring the debunky-boys forum JREF and the woooo-wooo Loose Change forum, two totally different forums. in one way or another I have the feeling that the JREf'ers are not really happy with this but I could be wrong because don't we all want to know what really happens wherever we are on the debunk-twoof scale... I still have to get the files
Now I have a second set of the preliminary floor plans wonderful where are the engineering blue prints ?
They are the ones that really show the structure, they are also the ones used both by the Society of Engineers and by NIST.
They show the steel structure and strength of the steel not the toilet locations!
A preliminary floor plan is all this is, it goes to the engineers who actually have to design the structure around it.
Until we can see the actual engineering blue prints we will never know Also these Documents were obtained Illegally, however I am glad they are out in the open now.
The sooner everything is out in the open the sooner the truth will actually be known!
Now I have a second set of the preliminary floor plans wonderful where are the engineering blue prints ?
They are the ones that really show the structure, they are also the ones used both by the Society of Engineers and by NIST.
They show the steel structure and strength of the steel not the toilet locations!
A preliminary floor plan is all this is, it goes to the engineers who actually have to design the structure around it.
Until we can see the actual engineering blue prints we will never know Also these Documents were obtained Illegally, however I am glad they are out in the open now.
The sooner everything is out in the open the sooner the truth will actually be known!
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 27 2007, 01:08 PM)
I was monitoring the debunky-boys forum JREF and the woooo-wooo Loose Change forum, two totally different forums. in one way or another I have the feeling that the JREf'ers are not really happy with this but I could be wrong because don't we all want to know what really happens wherever we are on the debunk-twoof scale... I still have to get the files
Now I have a second set of the preliminary floor plans wonderful where are the engineering blue prints ?
They are the ones that really show the structure, they are also the ones used both by the Society of Engineers and by NIST.
They show the steel structure and strength of the steel not the toilet locations!
A preliminary floor plan is all this is, it goes to the engineers who actually have to design the structure around it.
Until we can see the actual engineering blue prints we will never know Also these Documents were obtained Illegally, however I am glad they are out in the open now.
The sooner everything is out in the open the sooner the truth will actually be known!
Now I have a second set of the preliminary floor plans wonderful where are the engineering blue prints ?
They are the ones that really show the structure, they are also the ones used both by the Society of Engineers and by NIST.
They show the steel structure and strength of the steel not the toilet locations!
A preliminary floor plan is all this is, it goes to the engineers who actually have to design the structure around it.
Until we can see the actual engineering blue prints we will never know Also these Documents were obtained Illegally, however I am glad they are out in the open now.
The sooner everything is out in the open the sooner the truth will actually be known!
QUOTE
the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.
That is a highly misleading statement. The core columns were like the exterior columns, while the external dimensions of the columns may have remained the same, the internal dimensions and the strength of the steel varied.
I haven’t had a chance to look at the drawings yet, but if they are just architectural and don’t include the columns schedule, then they are really of no use in evaluating the structure of the building. Anyone claiming otherwise, simply does not understand what they are talking about.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 27 2007, 01:52 PM)
... while the external dimensions of the [core] columns may have remained the same, ...
Higher in the towers the external dimensions were smaller, least at/after the transition from box columns to wide-flanged rolled steel.
Of course, this is in NCSTAR1...
Higher in the towers the external dimensions were smaller, least at/after the transition from box columns to wide-flanged rolled steel.
Of course, this is in NCSTAR1...
QUOTE
Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower
Scans of original drawings of the North Tower of the World Trade Center have been published online by a coalition of independent 9/11 researchers and journalists.
Berkeley, CA (PRWEB) March 27, 2007 -- A coalition of independent 9/11 investigators and journalists today announced the online publication of a set of original blueprints of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The set is composed of over 200 never-before-published drawings, including plans, elevations, and details, given to physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones by an individual interested in a more complete analysis. Groups presenting the plans include Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, 9-11 Research, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. A multi-resolution drawing viewer for the blueprints is located at 9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net).
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said, "We cannot truly understand what happened in these historical structural failure events when we are not allowed access to the construction documents." Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."
Since the 9/11 attacks, numerous groups and individuals have challenged the official explanation that the Twin Towers experienced total structural collapse due to a combination of aircraft impact and fire damage. Challengers assert that the WTC Towers were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, rather than fires and impact damage.
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
The most recent version of the official explanation has been supplied by the three-year multi-million-dollar study of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which abandoned the earlier truss-failure-based "pancake" theory proposed by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study in favor of a theory of "global collapse" induced by a chain of events including impact column damage, dislodging of fireproofing, floor sagging, and "column instability".
Although NIST's 2005 Final Report did not explain how collapse initiation led to global collapse, in 2006 it responded to some aspects of the demolition theory in a Frequently Asked Questions sheet. NIST blamed the speeds of the failures on the momentum of the falling top portions of the buildings, stating that "the momentum . . . so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below, that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, and others responded to the FAQ on websites and via emails, but received no more communication from NIST.
The release of the blueprints is believed to be the first public presentation of a significant number of detailed architectural drawings of the destroyed skyscrapers. In 2002, lead FEMA investigator Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers was denied access to the plans by the Port Authority until he agreed to sign a waiver stating that his group would not use the blueprints to sue the agency. Corley and other officials testifying before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse drew angry comments from members of Congress regarding the withholding of the blueprints and the removal and scrapping of approximately 80% of structural steel from the debris pile without examination by any fire experts.
Another expert at the hearings, Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, stated, "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse." Investigators at the time stated that they did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence.
Public access to blueprints of the three destroyed skyscrapers - the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 - has been a long-standing goal of the 9/11 research community. The inability to access data on the structural design of the buildings has been an impediment to further investigation of the theory, these researchers say. One goal they have is to remodel the collapses and see if NIST's findings can be replicated.
"A key element of the scientific method is reproducibility - can others repeat the experiment and get the same results?" Jim Hoffman said, investigator and creator of www.wtc7.net . "Without the original data, findings cannot be examined scientifically. Even the most prominent scientists and engineers in history have made mistakes. But without the ability to try to replicate others' findings, we might keep on making the same mistakes over and over."
Groups releasing the plans cite support for the demolition theory in their organizations and elsewhere by a variety of professionals including structural and civil engineers, architects, and physicists. Supporters point to several features which they say cannot be explained by a gravity-driven collapse, including the speed, symmetry, explosiveness, thoroughness of pulverization, and totality of these events, and numerous reports of molten metal pools in the debris piles.
The research of physicist Steven E. Jones has focused on the molten metal pools found in basement areas under rubble piles of the Twin Towers and Building 7. He states in his paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse," that the observations of molten metal "are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel."
Neither of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' destruction - FEMA's and NIST's - disclose core column dimensions - dimensions now apparent in the blueprints. Hoffman believes these studies minimized the strength of the cores and their structural role, as did the Commission Report. "The Commission Report denied the existence of the core columns," he says, "describing each Tower's structural core as 'a hollow steel shaft.'"
Hoffman says that the newly released blueprints show what analysis of independent investigators have long held on the basis of construction photographs and scattered reports in journals, such as the Engineering News Record, from the era of the Towers' construction: "The Towers contained 47 large core columns, more than a dozen of which retained dimensions of 54 x 22 inches through the 66th floor, and tapered in stages on higher floors. The core columns around the South Tower's crash zone were about twice as heavy as those in the North Tower's crash zone."
Hoffman's associate editor, Gregg Roberts, sees the NIST Final Report as a whitewash. "The refusal by NIST to fully disclose its computer models, its assumptions, and the conflicts of interest of the many defense contractors who assisted in this whitewash of an investigation reveal the true intentions behind the Report."
Groups investigating the Towers' destruction also cite the case of the collapse of WTC Building 7. In 2004 during the 9/11 Commission hearings, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee (FSC) asked of the Commission, "On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?" The group formed in the fall of 2001 to demand an independent investigation into the attacks. However, 70 percent of the questions were either not sufficiently addressed or not addressed at all by the Commission. NIST has not yet released a final report on the proposed cause for the collapse of WTC 7, nor did the Commission mention that building in its Final Report. The newly released blueprints do not include WTC 7, built 10 years after the main World Trade Center complex.
Dr. Steven Jones has described the type of investigation he would like to see. He states in his paper, "A truly independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel should be formed. Such a panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion."
Critics of the Bush Administration's secretive policies have claimed that the alternative accounts of the attack have thrived in part because of the lack of information such as the WTC blueprints.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (stj911.org)
9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net)
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org)
Scans of original drawings of the North Tower of the World Trade Center have been published online by a coalition of independent 9/11 researchers and journalists.
Berkeley, CA (PRWEB) March 27, 2007 -- A coalition of independent 9/11 investigators and journalists today announced the online publication of a set of original blueprints of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The set is composed of over 200 never-before-published drawings, including plans, elevations, and details, given to physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones by an individual interested in a more complete analysis. Groups presenting the plans include Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, 9-11 Research, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. A multi-resolution drawing viewer for the blueprints is located at 9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net).
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said, "We cannot truly understand what happened in these historical structural failure events when we are not allowed access to the construction documents." Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."
Since the 9/11 attacks, numerous groups and individuals have challenged the official explanation that the Twin Towers experienced total structural collapse due to a combination of aircraft impact and fire damage. Challengers assert that the WTC Towers were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, rather than fires and impact damage.
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
The most recent version of the official explanation has been supplied by the three-year multi-million-dollar study of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which abandoned the earlier truss-failure-based "pancake" theory proposed by FEMA's 2002 Building Performance Study in favor of a theory of "global collapse" induced by a chain of events including impact column damage, dislodging of fireproofing, floor sagging, and "column instability".
Although NIST's 2005 Final Report did not explain how collapse initiation led to global collapse, in 2006 it responded to some aspects of the demolition theory in a Frequently Asked Questions sheet. NIST blamed the speeds of the failures on the momentum of the falling top portions of the buildings, stating that "the momentum . . . so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below, that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."
Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, and others responded to the FAQ on websites and via emails, but received no more communication from NIST.
The release of the blueprints is believed to be the first public presentation of a significant number of detailed architectural drawings of the destroyed skyscrapers. In 2002, lead FEMA investigator Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers was denied access to the plans by the Port Authority until he agreed to sign a waiver stating that his group would not use the blueprints to sue the agency. Corley and other officials testifying before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse drew angry comments from members of Congress regarding the withholding of the blueprints and the removal and scrapping of approximately 80% of structural steel from the debris pile without examination by any fire experts.
Another expert at the hearings, Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, stated, "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse." Investigators at the time stated that they did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence.
Public access to blueprints of the three destroyed skyscrapers - the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 - has been a long-standing goal of the 9/11 research community. The inability to access data on the structural design of the buildings has been an impediment to further investigation of the theory, these researchers say. One goal they have is to remodel the collapses and see if NIST's findings can be replicated.
"A key element of the scientific method is reproducibility - can others repeat the experiment and get the same results?" Jim Hoffman said, investigator and creator of www.wtc7.net . "Without the original data, findings cannot be examined scientifically. Even the most prominent scientists and engineers in history have made mistakes. But without the ability to try to replicate others' findings, we might keep on making the same mistakes over and over."
Groups releasing the plans cite support for the demolition theory in their organizations and elsewhere by a variety of professionals including structural and civil engineers, architects, and physicists. Supporters point to several features which they say cannot be explained by a gravity-driven collapse, including the speed, symmetry, explosiveness, thoroughness of pulverization, and totality of these events, and numerous reports of molten metal pools in the debris piles.
The research of physicist Steven E. Jones has focused on the molten metal pools found in basement areas under rubble piles of the Twin Towers and Building 7. He states in his paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse," that the observations of molten metal "are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel."
Neither of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' destruction - FEMA's and NIST's - disclose core column dimensions - dimensions now apparent in the blueprints. Hoffman believes these studies minimized the strength of the cores and their structural role, as did the Commission Report. "The Commission Report denied the existence of the core columns," he says, "describing each Tower's structural core as 'a hollow steel shaft.'"
Hoffman says that the newly released blueprints show what analysis of independent investigators have long held on the basis of construction photographs and scattered reports in journals, such as the Engineering News Record, from the era of the Towers' construction: "The Towers contained 47 large core columns, more than a dozen of which retained dimensions of 54 x 22 inches through the 66th floor, and tapered in stages on higher floors. The core columns around the South Tower's crash zone were about twice as heavy as those in the North Tower's crash zone."
Hoffman's associate editor, Gregg Roberts, sees the NIST Final Report as a whitewash. "The refusal by NIST to fully disclose its computer models, its assumptions, and the conflicts of interest of the many defense contractors who assisted in this whitewash of an investigation reveal the true intentions behind the Report."
Groups investigating the Towers' destruction also cite the case of the collapse of WTC Building 7. In 2004 during the 9/11 Commission hearings, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee (FSC) asked of the Commission, "On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?" The group formed in the fall of 2001 to demand an independent investigation into the attacks. However, 70 percent of the questions were either not sufficiently addressed or not addressed at all by the Commission. NIST has not yet released a final report on the proposed cause for the collapse of WTC 7, nor did the Commission mention that building in its Final Report. The newly released blueprints do not include WTC 7, built 10 years after the main World Trade Center complex.
Dr. Steven Jones has described the type of investigation he would like to see. He states in his paper, "A truly independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel should be formed. Such a panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion."
Critics of the Bush Administration's secretive policies have claimed that the alternative accounts of the attack have thrived in part because of the lack of information such as the WTC blueprints.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (stj911.org)
9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net)
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org)
http://stj911.org/press_releases/blueprints.html
The south tower floor layout and box columns don't look anything like what the JOKER'S at NIST modeled.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 27 2007, 05:52 AM)
That is a highly misleading statement. The core columns were like the exterior columns, while the external dimensions of the columns may have remained the same, the internal dimensions and the strength of the steel varied.
I haven’t had a chance to look at the drawings yet, but if they are just architectural and don’t include the columns schedule, then they are really of no use in evaluating the structure of the building. Anyone claiming otherwise, simply does not understand what they are talking about.
You should get a Job at NIST .
You haven't looked at the drawings but you KNOW they can't be used to evaluate the structure.
Reminiscent of NIST not finding evidence of CD when they did not investigate any anomalies.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Mar 27 2007, 05:25 AM)
Now I have a second set of the preliminary floor plans wonderful where are the engineering blue prints ?
They are the ones that really show the structure, they are also the ones used both by the Society of Engineers and by NIST.
They show the steel structure and strength of the steel not the toilet locations!
A preliminary floor plan is all this is, it goes to the engineers who actually have to design the structure around it.
Until we can see the actual engineering blue prints we will never know Also these Documents were obtained Illegally, however I am glad they are out in the open now.
The sooner everything is out in the open the sooner the truth will actually be known!
Please explain how the Documents were obtained Illegally?
They are the ones that really show the structure, they are also the ones used both by the Society of Engineers and by NIST.
They show the steel structure and strength of the steel not the toilet locations!
A preliminary floor plan is all this is, it goes to the engineers who actually have to design the structure around it.
Until we can see the actual engineering blue prints we will never know Also these Documents were obtained Illegally, however I am glad they are out in the open now.
The sooner everything is out in the open the sooner the truth will actually be known!
Please explain how the Documents were obtained Illegally?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 27 2007, 04:37 PM)
The south tower floor layout and box columns don't look anything like what the JOKER'S at NIST modeled.
YAWN
Arthur
YAWN
Arthur
I have nothing to add to your reply, Arthur.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 27 2007, 04:46 PM)
I have nothing to add to your reply, Arthur.
Refresh my memory, were does NIST specify the core column dimensions and ksi (the large box columns go up to the 80th floor)?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
Refresh my memory, were does NIST specify the core column dimensions and ksi (the large box columns go up to the 80th floor)?
QUOTE
NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers
In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was extremely vague in a number of respects, including any description of the structural systems of the Towers. It contains very little information about the core columns, the following being one of the only passages describing them:
The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size in the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns.
The passage implies that only the corner columns were "massive" when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
Illustrations in the Report depict the core columns at the North and South Tower crash zones as being the same size, when in fact the core columns were much broader around the 80th floor than around the 95th. NIST's failure to highlight this difference is especially interesting in light of its estimates of core column damage in the Towers. Those esimates show 10 of the South Tower's core columns severed, compared to only 6 of the North Tower's. How could the South Tower's core have had more damage when its impact-level columns were twice as large as the North Tower's and it sustained only a glancing rather than a head-on impact? Was NIST struggling to explain how the South Tower succumbed to "global collapse" almost twice as quickly as the North Tower despite having much smaller fires?
In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was extremely vague in a number of respects, including any description of the structural systems of the Towers. It contains very little information about the core columns, the following being one of the only passages describing them:
The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size in the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns.
The passage implies that only the corner columns were "massive" when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
Illustrations in the Report depict the core columns at the North and South Tower crash zones as being the same size, when in fact the core columns were much broader around the 80th floor than around the 95th. NIST's failure to highlight this difference is especially interesting in light of its estimates of core column damage in the Towers. Those esimates show 10 of the South Tower's core columns severed, compared to only 6 of the North Tower's. How could the South Tower's core have had more damage when its impact-level columns were twice as large as the North Tower's and it sustained only a glancing rather than a head-on impact? Was NIST struggling to explain how the South Tower succumbed to "global collapse" almost twice as quickly as the North Tower despite having much smaller fires?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
On edit I see that this has been posted upthread but here it is again for those of us who have been waiting for information that should have been available six years ago.
QUOTE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Phone: 510-769-5109
Email: stj911@gmail.com
Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower
Scans of original drawings of the North Tower of the World Trade Center have been published online by a coalition of independent 9/11 researchers and journalists.
http://stj911.org/press_releases/blueprints.html
online blueprints:
http://ae911truth.org/
Berkeley, CA (PRWEB) March 27, 2007 -- A coalition of independent 9/11 investigators and journalists today announced the online publication of a set of original blueprints of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The set is composed of over 200 never-before-published drawings, including plans, elevations, and details, given to physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones by an individual interested in a more complete analysis. Groups presenting the plans include Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, 9-11 Research, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. A multi-resolution drawing viewer for the blueprints is located at 9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net).
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said, "We cannot truly understand what happened in these historical structural failure events when we are not allowed access to the construction documents." Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."
Since the 9/11 attacks, numerous groups and individuals have challenged the official explanation that the Twin Towers experienced total structural collapse due to a combination of aircraft impact and fire damage. Challengers assert that the WTC Towers were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, rather than fires and impact damage.
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
<snip>
Critics of the Bush Administration's secretive policies have claimed that the alternative accounts of the attack have thrived in part because of the lack of information such as the WTC blueprints.
http://stj911.org/press_releases/blueprints.html
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (stj911.org)
9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net)
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org)
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Phone: 510-769-5109
Email: stj911@gmail.com
Independent Investigators Release Suppressed Blueprints of Destroyed World Trade Center Tower
Scans of original drawings of the North Tower of the World Trade Center have been published online by a coalition of independent 9/11 researchers and journalists.
http://stj911.org/press_releases/blueprints.html
online blueprints:
http://ae911truth.org/
Berkeley, CA (PRWEB) March 27, 2007 -- A coalition of independent 9/11 investigators and journalists today announced the online publication of a set of original blueprints of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The set is composed of over 200 never-before-published drawings, including plans, elevations, and details, given to physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones by an individual interested in a more complete analysis. Groups presenting the plans include Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, 9-11 Research, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. A multi-resolution drawing viewer for the blueprints is located at 9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net).
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, said, "We cannot truly understand what happened in these historical structural failure events when we are not allowed access to the construction documents." Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."
Since the 9/11 attacks, numerous groups and individuals have challenged the official explanation that the Twin Towers experienced total structural collapse due to a combination of aircraft impact and fire damage. Challengers assert that the WTC Towers were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, rather than fires and impact damage.
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
<snip>
Critics of the Bush Administration's secretive policies have claimed that the alternative accounts of the attack have thrived in part because of the lack of information such as the WTC blueprints.
http://stj911.org/press_releases/blueprints.html
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (stj911.org)
9-11 Research (911research.wtc7.net)
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 27 2007, 11:44 PM)
Refresh my memory, were does NIST specify the core column dimensions and ksi (the large box columns go up to the 80th floor)?
NIST NCSTAR 1-5G - Append. B. Column Schedule
NIST NCSTAR 1-5G - Append. B. Column Schedule
sort list by number of views
oops. that doesn't work. okay, go to the bottom of the page and select 'number of views' in the drop down list after 'sort list'.
in other words, LOL! the original "basic physics" thread has 650,000 views, now.
i guess locking a topic doesn't stop it from being popular.
oops. that doesn't work. okay, go to the bottom of the page and select 'number of views' in the drop down list after 'sort list'.
in other words, LOL! the original "basic physics" thread has 650,000 views, now.
i guess locking a topic doesn't stop it from being popular.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 28 2007, 07:02 PM)
i guess locking a topic doesn't stop it from being popular.
Web trawling searches continue to bring forth a number of the posts quite early on in the the results list.
Web trawling searches continue to bring forth a number of the posts quite early on in the the results list.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 28 2007, 07:48 PM)
Web trawling searches continue to bring forth a number of the posts quite early on in the the results list.
well, bless the spiders.
i'm sure all 600 000 of them are well educated by now.
well, bless the spiders.
i'm sure all 600 000 of them are well educated by now.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 27 2007, 03:44 PM)
You should get a Job at NIST .
You haven't looked at the drawings but you KNOW they can't be used to evaluate the structure.
Certainly, since these are architectural floor plans and not framing drawings and schedules. Learn what the different professions do when designing and constructing a building.
Reminiscent of NIST not finding evidence of CD when they did not investigate any anomalies.
It must really suck to get all excited about this “new discovery” only to learn that there is nothing in it that can help feed your paranoid fantasy.
BTW
You never did answer any of my questions about the bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems.
What part of an inverse square law are you still having problems with?
You haven't looked at the drawings but you KNOW they can't be used to evaluate the structure.
Certainly, since these are architectural floor plans and not framing drawings and schedules. Learn what the different professions do when designing and constructing a building.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 27 2007, 03:44 PM)
Reminiscent of NIST not finding evidence of CD when they did not investigate any anomalies.
It must really suck to get all excited about this “new discovery” only to learn that there is nothing in it that can help feed your paranoid fantasy.
BTW
You never did answer any of my questions about the bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems.
What part of an inverse square law are you still having problems with?
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 29 2007, 02:04 AM)
What part of an inverse square law are you still having problems with?
"Its square, not round!
"Its square, not round!
Hey, What happened to New Fonzie and the "Great Chlorine/ Zinc Mystery?"
He was all manic about this for a week, constantly posing and all, and now nothing. . . .
I hope he isn't all bummed out because he couldn't get anyone to buy into his theroies. What ever they were.
He was all manic about this for a week, constantly posing and all, and now nothing. . . .
I hope he isn't all bummed out because he couldn't get anyone to buy into his theroies. What ever they were.
Already in Attendance:
And
For for 911 Truth
And
For for 911 Truth
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 29 2007, 04:01 AM)
Coming in May:
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
Will we be THRILLED by more such incisive pieces as this:
How many HUNDREDS of pages back was THAT disproved.
Arthur
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
Will we be THRILLED by more such incisive pieces as this:
QUOTE
Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
How many HUNDREDS of pages back was THAT disproved.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 01:30 AM)
here's some more spider fodder,,,
blogarrific
Good post!
That's very similar to the computer model Jim Hoffman created at 911research (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/), but Hoffman assumed a % loss of mass of the entire upper block upon floor impacts, whereas this model assumes a % mass loss of each floor.
blogarrific
Good post!
That's very similar to the computer model Jim Hoffman created at 911research (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/), but Hoffman assumed a % loss of mass of the entire upper block upon floor impacts, whereas this model assumes a % mass loss of each floor.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 29 2007, 12:39 PM)
Will we be THRILLED by more such incisive pieces as this:
How many HUNDREDS of pages back was THAT disproved.
Arthur
Wishful thinking aside, this has never been disproved here or elsewhere.
QUOTE
Gage believes that, given the profound differences in the official collapse theories, the need for more investigation is clear. "First they come up with the "pancake theory", then they changed it to the "column failure theory". We don't believe that either of those theories are supported by the available evidence."
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
"The only theory that is supported by the evidence is controlled demolition with explosives," Gage says. "You could never get a collapse event of that speed through 80 floors of intact steel structure. The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
How many HUNDREDS of pages back was THAT disproved.
Arthur
Wishful thinking aside, this has never been disproved here or elsewhere.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 29 2007, 12:56 PM)
Good post!
That's very similar to the computer model Jim Hoffman created at 911research (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/), but Hoffman assumed a % loss of mass of the entire upper block upon floor impacts, whereas this model assumes a % mass loss of each floor.
I know that thing for a while, but it doesn't disprove anything. If it was 20 seconds then it would be interesting...
That's very similar to the computer model Jim Hoffman created at 911research (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/), but Hoffman assumed a % loss of mass of the entire upper block upon floor impacts, whereas this model assumes a % mass loss of each floor.
I know that thing for a while, but it doesn't disprove anything. If it was 20 seconds then it would be interesting...
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 29 2007, 07:59 AM)
Wishful thinking aside, this has never been disproved here or elsewhere.
That's the funny part.
If you could actually PROVE that
Then you MIGHT just get others besides tin foil hat loonies to join you.
BUT YOU CAN'T.
Even a quick look at the model shows that he DOESN'T PROVE that the collapse took too long he simply makes the UNPROVEN STATEMENT
Then you MIGHT just get others besides tin foil hat loonies to join you.
BUT YOU CAN'T.
Even a quick look at the model shows that he DOESN'T PROVE that the collapse took too long he simply makes the UNPROVEN STATEMENT
The collapse of WTC1 took approximately 15 seconds to complete. Add air resistance, the mechanical resistance of the structure, the kinetic energy dissipated in the process of pulverizing the concrete, office furniture, and industrial carpet to average <60 micron-sized dust, and the final expected figure from gravitational "pancake" collapse would be much greater than 15 seconds.
So although he has not actually computed an EXPECTED figure or shown how the collapse times VARY based on different assumptions, STILL he then MORPHS this HANDWAVING into a quasi proof:
Arthur
How can you get comparable times if you also throw in the mechanical resistance offered by the core and perimeter columns? (not to mention pulverizing energy etc..)
You seem to think that the “mechanical resistance” is significant. It is not.
The energy of a falling mass the size of the top block(s) far outstrips the puny mechanical resistance offered by the bolts and angle clips.
The same goes for the so called pulverization energy.
You seem to think that the “mechanical resistance” is significant. It is not.
The energy of a falling mass the size of the top block(s) far outstrips the puny mechanical resistance offered by the bolts and angle clips.
The same goes for the so called pulverization energy.
Well, that is where our disagreement appears to be then. To me the tens of thousands of tons of steel in the intact structures below the impact zones are going to provide considerable resistance, if not stop the collapse completely.
I think you are relying on the ridiculous Greening "E1" analysis where the resistance of the bottom structure is considered 1-floor at a time instead of as a whole.
That's the funny part.
If you could actually PROVE that
QUOTE
"The laws of physics simply don't allow it."
Then you MIGHT just get others besides tin foil hat loonies to join you.
BUT YOU CAN'T.
Even a quick look at the model shows that he DOESN'T PROVE that the collapse took too long he simply makes the UNPROVEN STATEMENT
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "The laws of physics simply don't allow it." |
Then you MIGHT just get others besides tin foil hat loonies to join you.
BUT YOU CAN'T.
Even a quick look at the model shows that he DOESN'T PROVE that the collapse took too long he simply makes the UNPROVEN STATEMENT
The collapse of WTC1 took approximately 15 seconds to complete. Add air resistance, the mechanical resistance of the structure, the kinetic energy dissipated in the process of pulverizing the concrete, office furniture, and industrial carpet to average <60 micron-sized dust, and the final expected figure from gravitational "pancake" collapse would be much greater than 15 seconds.
So although he has not actually computed an EXPECTED figure or shown how the collapse times VARY based on different assumptions, STILL he then MORPHS this HANDWAVING into a quasi proof:
QUOTE
Hence, the US Government's collapse theory would seem to be impossible as an explanation for the collapse of WTC1.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 02:02 PM)
I know that thing for a while, but it doesn't disprove anything. If it was 20 seconds then it would be interesting...
But remember, those models don't include the mechanical resistance of the structure at all. It would be more clear cut if the time was 20 seconds, but these models show that just by looking at the momentum & inertia of the masses involved we get close to observed collapse times.
How can you get comparable times if you also throw in the mechanical resistance offered by the core and perimeter columns? (not to mention pulverizing energy etc..)
On top of this the models all start by giving the "upper block" a free fall start through 1-floor height - in actuality of course these conditions did not happen (ie. a 1-floor empty space suddenly created in the tower).
So, as I've mentioned before these models are a way of applying some simple math/physics to a complex problem in order to get a lower bound for the time of collapse.
But remember, those models don't include the mechanical resistance of the structure at all. It would be more clear cut if the time was 20 seconds, but these models show that just by looking at the momentum & inertia of the masses involved we get close to observed collapse times.
How can you get comparable times if you also throw in the mechanical resistance offered by the core and perimeter columns? (not to mention pulverizing energy etc..)
On top of this the models all start by giving the "upper block" a free fall start through 1-floor height - in actuality of course these conditions did not happen (ie. a 1-floor empty space suddenly created in the tower).
So, as I've mentioned before these models are a way of applying some simple math/physics to a complex problem in order to get a lower bound for the time of collapse.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 29 2007, 08:32 AM)
How can you get comparable times if you also throw in the mechanical resistance offered by the core and perimeter columns? (not to mention pulverizing energy etc..)
You seem to think that the “mechanical resistance” is significant. It is not.
The energy of a falling mass the size of the top block(s) far outstrips the puny mechanical resistance offered by the bolts and angle clips.
The same goes for the so called pulverization energy.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 28 2007, 08:20 PM)
"Its square, not round!
Actualy it's rectangular and MASSIVE
Actualy it's rectangular and MASSIVE
The most dominant part is the ratio of the E1 factor and the collapsing mass. And I've still never seen a model in which the collapsing mass also loses mass. At around xmas I’ve worked out the analytic relation which gives the speed as function of the floor when a fraction w per floor is lost (the time cannot be done in that way but only numerically) What I now am trying to do is also adding the energy that is lost due to ejecting material. Since the collapsing mass already got enough speed a fraction that is lost doesn’t require energy but the problem is that the speed vector needs to be turned in a horizontal directory. I have no idea how to work that out at the moment. On the one hand you can use a kind of rigid wedge that collapses into a hollow cylinder and peels it out but that one doesn’t collect collapsing mass and will certainly give a slow velocity. On the other hand the pancakers want to collect *** much mass as possible but that cannot explain ejection of material. Personally I have also problems with the squibs, I don’t think there is a proper scientifically explanation for that, oh yes I can write a nice paragraph about mass and air that is pressed out but everyone can do that. If you look at the video in which a camera is very low on the collapsing zone you really see a kind of demolition wave which is in fact a collection of those squibs, I think it is hard to swallow this as the result of a pancaking. Progressive collapse sounds of course much more intelligent than a pancake collapse but in fact it is nothing more than an ennobled pancake collapse.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 29 2007, 03:01 PM)
You seem to think that the “mechanical resistance” is significant. It is not.
The energy of a falling mass the size of the top block(s) far outstrips the puny mechanical resistance offered by the bolts and angle clips.
The same goes for the so called pulverization energy.
Well, that is where our disagreement appears to be then. To me the tens of thousands of tons of steel in the intact structures below the impact zones are going to provide considerable resistance, if not stop the collapse completely.
I think you are relying on the ridiculous Greening "E1" analysis where the resistance of the bottom structure is considered 1-floor at a time instead of as a whole.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 29 2007, 10:26 AM)
To me the tens of thousands of tons of steel in the intact structures below the impact zones are going to provide considerable resistance, if not stop the collapse completely.
So HOW COME this BELIEF is only expressed by those with apparently little to no knowledge of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING?
HOW COME this BELIEF is NOT SHARED by the MANY THOUSANDS of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS?
I mean it ISN'T like this event wasn't WIDELY SEEN when it occurred.
It ISN'T like the Troothers BELIEF that it MUST HAVE BEEN CD hasn't been widely spread.
Its been over a year since the Troothers got reasonably organized and actually got media coverage, yet the list of "notable" sceptics has remained largly the same motly crew and despite all their efforts NOT ONE PEER REVIEWED PAPER SUPPORTING THIS BELIEF has been published.
WHY?
Arthur
So HOW COME this BELIEF is only expressed by those with apparently little to no knowledge of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING?
HOW COME this BELIEF is NOT SHARED by the MANY THOUSANDS of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS?
I mean it ISN'T like this event wasn't WIDELY SEEN when it occurred.
It ISN'T like the Troothers BELIEF that it MUST HAVE BEEN CD hasn't been widely spread.
Its been over a year since the Troothers got reasonably organized and actually got media coverage, yet the list of "notable" sceptics has remained largly the same motly crew and despite all their efforts NOT ONE PEER REVIEWED PAPER SUPPORTING THIS BELIEF has been published.
WHY?
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 03:10 PM)
If you look at the video in which a camera is very low on the collapsing zone you really see a kind of demolition wave which is in fact a collection of those squibs, I think it is hard to swallow this as the result of a pancaking.
Do you think that demolition packs were installed on most or all of the floors to propagate the collapse? How would all of that be implemented?
Do you think that demolition packs were installed on most or all of the floors to propagate the collapse? How would all of that be implemented?
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 03:10 PM)
The most dominant part is the ratio of the E1 factor and the collapsing mass. And I've still never seen a model in which the collapsing mass also loses mass.
I've modeled the shed mass as coming from the front and from the upper block. Shedding from the upper block slows the front slightly more than shedding from the front. I can post some values if you want.
I've modeled the shed mass as coming from the front and from the upper block. Shedding from the upper block slows the front slightly more than shedding from the front. I can post some values if you want.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 29 2007, 05:12 PM)
Do you think that demolition packs were installed on most or all of the floors to propagate the collapse? How would all of that be implemented?
first the core was cut, and began to fall, which is why you see the perimeter pulled in at start of the sequence. once it began sinking, a sequence of explosions were initiated at slighty faster than acceleration due to gravity, so that falling debris was falling into debris which was also falling(at a slower rate, because it just started).
the explosives do not have to be on every floor. they don't even have to be explosives, but could be energy weapons working on unknown principles.
i love the theory that a steel skyscraper provides 'no mechanical resistance'. evil emperors say such silly things.
remember, palpably-sweatine, that whatever properties you assign to the bottom, are also true to the cap.
in reality, the cap did not stay together, and the bottom was not knocked out one floor at a time.
as lozenge124 says, this is a model which illustrates lower bound. 14 seconds is how long it takes if the floors are suspended in space, AND you attribute the top with equal mass distribution to the bottom. it is not only the strength of the bolts, but the inertia of the mass that must be overcome. when you actually weld the towers together, bolt the floors on, and unpretend that the tower is a stack of identical boxes, and add the SUPERCORE, the lower bound becomes obviously silly. and, the observed time is slightly more than 12 seconds, meaning some 'layers' of the towers' debris WERE freefalling through what used to be underneath them.
it is not up to 'us' to prove how they did it. it is enough for us to know that they fell too fast to have crushed themselves.
first the core was cut, and began to fall, which is why you see the perimeter pulled in at start of the sequence. once it began sinking, a sequence of explosions were initiated at slighty faster than acceleration due to gravity, so that falling debris was falling into debris which was also falling(at a slower rate, because it just started).
the explosives do not have to be on every floor. they don't even have to be explosives, but could be energy weapons working on unknown principles.
i love the theory that a steel skyscraper provides 'no mechanical resistance'. evil emperors say such silly things.
remember, palpably-sweatine, that whatever properties you assign to the bottom, are also true to the cap.
in reality, the cap did not stay together, and the bottom was not knocked out one floor at a time.
as lozenge124 says, this is a model which illustrates lower bound. 14 seconds is how long it takes if the floors are suspended in space, AND you attribute the top with equal mass distribution to the bottom. it is not only the strength of the bolts, but the inertia of the mass that must be overcome. when you actually weld the towers together, bolt the floors on, and unpretend that the tower is a stack of identical boxes, and add the SUPERCORE, the lower bound becomes obviously silly. and, the observed time is slightly more than 12 seconds, meaning some 'layers' of the towers' debris WERE freefalling through what used to be underneath them.
it is not up to 'us' to prove how they did it. it is enough for us to know that they fell too fast to have crushed themselves.
Shagster, I don't know what I have to think about charges, I still keep the option open. Did you work it out using a computer program ?
Adoucette, why do 1000 of strutural engineers agree with a collapse that hasn't been investigated ? Wasn't it collapse initiation that matters ? Didn't the NIST look in fact only look at dt
Adoucette, why do 1000 of strutural engineers agree with a collapse that hasn't been investigated ? Wasn't it collapse initiation that matters ? Didn't the NIST look in fact only look at dt
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 05:36 PM)
it is enough for us to know that they fell too fast to have crushed themselves.
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 06:28 PM)
Wasn't it collapse initiation that matters ?
Yes, and that is all that matters. NIST explained this to their satisfaction. I've elaborated on the details of why the core collapsed, via an average DCR. After that, Bazant & Verdure provides an explanation of progressive collapse which doesn't require a whole floor to be 'removed'. However, as shagster has pointed out, with more than 55 floors, the Greening style model is sufficiently continuous to give the same results.
I remind everybody that B & V have an interesting, physics based, conclusion that, except at the beginning, collapse must proceed crush-down only. Before assuming simultaneous crush-down and crush-up, one first has to refute this conclusion. (I'm not going to try...)
Yes, and that is all that matters. NIST explained this to their satisfaction. I've elaborated on the details of why the core collapsed, via an average DCR. After that, Bazant & Verdure provides an explanation of progressive collapse which doesn't require a whole floor to be 'removed'. However, as shagster has pointed out, with more than 55 floors, the Greening style model is sufficiently continuous to give the same results.
I remind everybody that B & V have an interesting, physics based, conclusion that, except at the beginning, collapse must proceed crush-down only. Before assuming simultaneous crush-down and crush-up, one first has to refute this conclusion. (I'm not going to try...)
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 01:28 PM)
Adoucette, why do 1000 of strutural engineers agree with a collapse that hasn't been investigated?
Why is it that ONLY NON-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS question it?
LOOK, its been almost 6 friggin years since the towers fell.
Its been almost 2 years since the FINAL NIST report came out.
So while Troothers have PLENTY OF TIME to make VIDEOS, come out with a plethora of T-Shirts, DESIGN elaborate WEB Sites and even HOST multiple "Troother" CONVENTIONS,
WHY CAN'T THEY GET A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO WRITE A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED PAPER PROVING THAT THE TOWERS COULDN'T HAVE FALLEN THE WAY NIST SAID THEY DID
WHY?
Are Structural Engineers THAT hard to find?
Arthur
Why is it that ONLY NON-STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS question it?
LOOK, its been almost 6 friggin years since the towers fell.
Its been almost 2 years since the FINAL NIST report came out.
So while Troothers have PLENTY OF TIME to make VIDEOS, come out with a plethora of T-Shirts, DESIGN elaborate WEB Sites and even HOST multiple "Troother" CONVENTIONS,
WHY CAN'T THEY GET A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO WRITE A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED PAPER PROVING THAT THE TOWERS COULDN'T HAVE FALLEN THE WAY NIST SAID THEY DID
WHY?
Are Structural Engineers THAT hard to find?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 29 2007, 06:51 PM)
Are Structural Engineers THAT hard to find?
"A good structural engineer is hard to find..."
"A good structural engineer is hard to find..."
There will be a day that that peer reviewed paper will come. As far as I know there is also no PRP that proves they did in their characteristic way, with mass ejection etc.
This is one of the most convincing videos that shows the squib story, don't listen to the explosion sounds because it probably is added afterwards
http://www.911archive.info/video/WTC2/WTC2...ow%20(FR2)2.avi (xvid mpeg4 codec)
This is one of the most convincing videos that shows the squib story, don't listen to the explosion sounds because it probably is added afterwards
http://www.911archive.info/video/WTC2/WTC2...ow%20(FR2)2.avi (xvid mpeg4 codec)
little bitty googlin' and here is the other one.
http://11syyskuu.net/video/911.wtc.2.demol...south.below.mpg
http://11syyskuu.net/video/911.wtc.2.demol...south.below.mpg
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 02:16 PM)
There will be a day that that peer reviewed paper will come.
BS
If one WAS going to be written it would have been done by NOW.
Troothers just can't deal with the fact that they are trying to argue about a SCIENTIFIC issue but can't get any RELEVANT SCIENTISTS to back up their claims.
Arthur
BS
If one WAS going to be written it would have been done by NOW.
Troothers just can't deal with the fact that they are trying to argue about a SCIENTIFIC issue but can't get any RELEVANT SCIENTISTS to back up their claims.
Arthur
scientists aren't 'relevant'.
science is.
the 'peer review relevant scientist' establishment is not the sole proprietor of 'trooth'. in fact, all the dangerous drugs that are constantly approooved for human consumption, are often more harmful than the disease they're trying to counter. umpteen dozen successful lawsuits proove it.
or how about global warming? is it happening? is it man-made? there are TONS of 'peer-reviewed' papers on the topic, and THEY DON'T ALL AGREE, proooving that peer review does not equal absolute truth.
you make the best red herring, dear.
wonder where neu-fonze went? i hope he's wood shedding, and will have some relevant SCIENCE for us to digest.
science is.
the 'peer review relevant scientist' establishment is not the sole proprietor of 'trooth'. in fact, all the dangerous drugs that are constantly approooved for human consumption, are often more harmful than the disease they're trying to counter. umpteen dozen successful lawsuits proove it.
or how about global warming? is it happening? is it man-made? there are TONS of 'peer-reviewed' papers on the topic, and THEY DON'T ALL AGREE, proooving that peer review does not equal absolute truth.
you make the best red herring, dear.
wonder where neu-fonze went? i hope he's wood shedding, and will have some relevant SCIENCE for us to digest.
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 07:26 PM)
little bitty googlin' and here is the other one.
http://11syyskuu.net/video/911.wtc.2.demol...south.below.mpg
the tiny squib which appears below the mechanical floors appears at collapse initiation.
there is NO PLUNGER at that point in the collapse.
that means, there is no 'SYRINGE THEORY' possible.
notice also that the fireman, and subsequently the cameraman look up because they hear something.
and yet, the first frames show no movement, because the collapse has not yet started. this is also obvious, because you can see the flames in the other tower flare up when the collapse does begin.
for the logically challenged, sound cannot be made without something moving. therefore, the low rumble has a different sound source than a building crashing into itself. no movement, no crashing.
if there was movement, the fires in the other tower would flare up, too(a pressure wave moves faster than sound), so 'smoke is obscuring the movement' is not a valid argument.
that one squib, and the mysterious sound source are proof positive that the official story is a lie.
of course, there are TONS of factors that prove it. the problem is overcoming the satanic-controlled media, law enforcement and government.
check out ted gunderson for good, solid research into the satanic cabal that rules america.
http://11syyskuu.net/video/911.wtc.2.demol...south.below.mpg
the tiny squib which appears below the mechanical floors appears at collapse initiation.
there is NO PLUNGER at that point in the collapse.
that means, there is no 'SYRINGE THEORY' possible.
notice also that the fireman, and subsequently the cameraman look up because they hear something.
and yet, the first frames show no movement, because the collapse has not yet started. this is also obvious, because you can see the flames in the other tower flare up when the collapse does begin.
for the logically challenged, sound cannot be made without something moving. therefore, the low rumble has a different sound source than a building crashing into itself. no movement, no crashing.
if there was movement, the fires in the other tower would flare up, too(a pressure wave moves faster than sound), so 'smoke is obscuring the movement' is not a valid argument.
that one squib, and the mysterious sound source are proof positive that the official story is a lie.
of course, there are TONS of factors that prove it. the problem is overcoming the satanic-controlled media, law enforcement and government.
check out ted gunderson for good, solid research into the satanic cabal that rules america.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 10:00 PM)
the tiny squib which appears below the mechanical floors appears at collapse initiation.
HVAC vents? A vibration, from above internally, only appearing externally lower down?
Sorry, newton, but there are plenty of plausible explanations for the tiny squib which, in any case, is not a building destroying event.
Oh yes. You are also wrong about the peer-reviewed climatology literature. No denial of global warming there. None.
HVAC vents? A vibration, from above internally, only appearing externally lower down?
Sorry, newton, but there are plenty of plausible explanations for the tiny squib which, in any case, is not a building destroying event.
Oh yes. You are also wrong about the peer-reviewed climatology literature. No denial of global warming there. None.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 04:44 PM)
peer review does not equal absolute truth.
No of course it doesn't.
But LACK OF ANY PEER REVIEWED MATERIAL SUPPORTING YOUR ASSERTION is very damaging to your claims.
Like I said, Troothers have PLENTY OF TIME to make VIDEOS, come out with a plethora of T-Shirts, DESIGN elaborate WEB Sites and even HOST multiple "Troother" CONVENTIONS,
WHY CAN'T THEY GET A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO WRITE A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED PAPER PROVING THAT THE TOWERS COULDN'T HAVE FALLEN THE WAY NIST SAID THEY DID
You don't have to find an engineer to prove HOW they fell, only that they COULDN'T have fallen the way NIST claimed.
TROOTHERS invariably claim that that issue is a SLAM DUNK.
So how come NONE OF THEM can come up with any proof of that assertion?
Arthur
No of course it doesn't.
But LACK OF ANY PEER REVIEWED MATERIAL SUPPORTING YOUR ASSERTION is very damaging to your claims.
Like I said, Troothers have PLENTY OF TIME to make VIDEOS, come out with a plethora of T-Shirts, DESIGN elaborate WEB Sites and even HOST multiple "Troother" CONVENTIONS,
WHY CAN'T THEY GET A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO WRITE A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED PAPER PROVING THAT THE TOWERS COULDN'T HAVE FALLEN THE WAY NIST SAID THEY DID
You don't have to find an engineer to prove HOW they fell, only that they COULDN'T have fallen the way NIST claimed.
TROOTHERS invariably claim that that issue is a SLAM DUNK.
So how come NONE OF THEM can come up with any proof of that assertion?
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 29 2007, 10:10 PM)
HVAC vents? A vibration, from above internally, only appearing externally lower down?
Sorry, newton, but there are plenty of plausible explanations for the tiny squib which, in any case, is not a building destroying event.
Oh yes. You are also wrong about the peer-reviewed climatology literature. No denial of global warming there. None.
whatever.
i never suggested that the squib was a building destroying event. it was small, i said.
sorry. no downward movement from above, no (lame) excuse for a squib.
if 'they' can keep proven pedophiles out of jail, 'they' can easily keep perfectly good papers from being peer reviewed.
first the debate on global warming was yes/no(say in the 80's). now it accepted that there is global warming, and the debate is man-made/natural. in both cases, both sides are at odds with each other. it is only because ancient ice(shelves and glaciers) has RECENTLY started disappearing that the yes/no debate was silenced.
Sorry, newton, but there are plenty of plausible explanations for the tiny squib which, in any case, is not a building destroying event.
Oh yes. You are also wrong about the peer-reviewed climatology literature. No denial of global warming there. None.
whatever.
i never suggested that the squib was a building destroying event. it was small, i said.
sorry. no downward movement from above, no (lame) excuse for a squib.
if 'they' can keep proven pedophiles out of jail, 'they' can easily keep perfectly good papers from being peer reviewed.
first the debate on global warming was yes/no(say in the 80's). now it accepted that there is global warming, and the debate is man-made/natural. in both cases, both sides are at odds with each other. it is only because ancient ice(shelves and glaciers) has RECENTLY started disappearing that the yes/no debate was silenced.
einsteen
I would point out that puffs of air do not produce the "sounds of explosions", that explosive's "sounds" would not need to be faked to be heard and that the explosive sounds were added in an attempt to fool the viewer into thinking that puffs of air WERE explosives, something that would not be required if the puffs of air were explosives, therefore logic says the puffs of air were puffs of air, not explosives. And the person who faked the soundtrack KNOWS THIS.
So who is being disingenuous about the facts??? CTers, that's who.
Newton
I would point out that puffs of air do not produce the "sounds of explosions", that explosive's "sounds" would not need to be faked to be heard and that the explosive sounds were added in an attempt to fool the viewer into thinking that puffs of air WERE explosives, something that would not be required if the puffs of air were explosives, therefore logic says the puffs of air were puffs of air, not explosives. And the person who faked the soundtrack KNOWS THIS.
So who is being disingenuous about the facts??? CTers, that's who.
Newton
of course, there are TONS of factors that prove it. the problem is overcoming the satanic-controlled media, law enforcement and government.
check out ted gunderson for good, solid research into the satanic cabal that rules america.
Sorry to see that you are having such a catastrophic mental breakdown. Where this attack was religiously motivated, it was(and is)not demons, but men who committed 9/11 in the name of their god
In your present mental state it could prove dangerous for you to be listening to the various religious charlatans(ted gunderson included), you are already having enough cognitive problems without surrendering your thought processes to someone even further off kilter than you yourself obviously are.
Grumpy
the explosives do not have to be on every floor. they don't even have to be explosives, but could be energy weapons working on unknown principles.
Or it could have been caused by genetically modified, steel eating termites. They fart out chlorine and zinc fumes.
i love the theory that a steel skyscraper provides 'no mechanical resistance'. evil emperors say such silly things.
Where did anyone say that?
There was mechanical resistance, but it was trivial compared to the energy of the moving mass of debris.
wonder where neu-fonze went?
Well, the kindly Dr. Greening has authored a movie script outline in which the central character, named "Apollo20" believes that the twin towers were brought down by evil perpetrators who secretly mixed "Ammonium perchlorate powder, probably containing manganese dioxide and other additives (e.g. Al, HMX, etc.)" into the fireproofing material added to the steel from 1995-2001.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...191#post2474191
I have hypothesized that Dr. NEU-FONZE was smitten by his conscience, and can no longer pretend to believe in his absurd gravity collapse paper.
I would have posted the links but this forum will not allow newbies to do so
If these videos have already been posted I'm sorry for wasting you time.
Those limitations are annoying, I ran into them too initially.
But to post links, just keep the "http://" and "www" out ie: google.com
People won't be able to click on them, but they will be able to copy and paste them into the browser address bar.
Certainly, since these are architectural floor plans and not framing drawings and schedules. Learn what the different professions do when designing and constructing a building.
It must really suck to get all excited about this “new discovery” only to learn that there is nothing in it that can help feed your paranoid fantasy.
BTW
You never did answer any of my questions about the bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems.
What part of an inverse square law are you still having problems with?
All the measurements of the columns and exact placement are now known. It is obvious NIST misrepresented the column size and architecture of the floors ( the stairs in the south tower were not modeled). You would need two stacks of pancakes in the South Tower for the "pancake theory".
It really must suck to live in your paranoid world with fewer and fewer people believing you ridicules fairy tale.
Your bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems is not worth responding to until you can prove it with forensic evidence or simulation ( NIST wasted 20 million trying).
So, is it not safe to say that most of the blueprints are hidden from public view?
Most of the pertinent design criteria documents were scanned in and are part of the NIST reports.
real structural engineers can look at those and understand the structural desing of the building.
The structural design was actually fairly simple. It was studied by engineering students as a classic example of modern skyscraper design long before 9/11.
All of the strucutral details that RW is harping about are in the NIST reports.
They DO show the floor plans for the floors, the Extrenal Column schedules, the Core Column Schedules, the Truss material Schedules, the Floor material Schedules and the Truss seat schedules for ALL THE FLOORS in and near the impact area/fire area.
"If we ONLY had the blueprints"
Arthur
BS, please give page number were NIST shows the layout of the floors in the south tower?
I have not seen any reference to the stairs from the mechanical floors to the 83 floor in the south tower (essentially cutting the open office space in half).
They might show the columns size in an appendix however NIST does not use this information for the simulations.
The exact structure of the core in particular the cross-bracing of the core columns is still a mystery.
The exact structure of the core in particular the cross-bracing of the core columns is still a mystery.
They DO show the floor plans for the floors, the Extrenal Column schedules, the Core Column Schedules, the Truss material Schedules, the Floor material Schedules and the Truss seat schedules for ALL THE FLOORS in and near the impact area/fire area.
Perhaps "all the floors IN AND NEAR THE IMPACT AREA/FIRE" would be a bit less misleading. But I guess the other floors are of no concern to the NIST as they are not interested in what happens after "collapse initation".
Source? Define a "qualified researcher". Who makes the call? Why not release the information to the public? While you're at it list some peer reviewed published independant critiques/assessments of the NIST report by "qualified" structural engineers.
Are you saying people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, scholars for truth etc do not have the "need" to see this information? because they aren't "serious" researchers? On the one hand you bemoan the fact that they haven't published any paper in a major journal, but on the other hand you seem to be OK with the withholding of data from these groups. One of their main complaints they seem to have is that they do not have access to enough data to do their research properly. For example:
- access to the 6899 photographs and 6977 segments of video footage held by NIST (and yes, you can apparently submit a FOIA, pay $13,000 and get them, I have emailed Jones about this and he responded that the non-disclosure agreements you have to sign to do so are unacceptable as you cannot share them with anyone else - for example by including them in a paper)
- access to the computer models/datasets used by the NIST. How can anyone evaluate the NIST report without this?
- blueprints of WTC, in particular the core bracing schedule from "Drawing Book 6". Has any independent agent even compared the blueprints to the NIST FEA model to see if it makes sense? This is one of the goals of 911research for example (Jim Hoffman)
I think that regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, making this information freely available should be supported by all. It's slowly trickling in thanks to the efforts of scholars for truth (and justice) (the recent blueprints were released to Steven Jones by someone who worked on the Silverstein insurance trial, without Steven Jones and "truth movement" legwork this would probably have never happened), and I hope it continues. But it's tiring to see posters here alternately claim that everything is already available (lie), or claim that it has been made available to the people "who matter". Science is based on the free availability of information and data.
Are you saying people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, scholars for truth etc do not have the "need" to see this information? because they aren't "serious" researchers? On the one hand you bemoan the fact that they haven't published any paper in a major journal, but on the other hand you seem to be OK with the withholding of data from these groups. One of their main complaints they seem to have is that they do not have access to enough data to do their research properly. For example:
- access to the 6899 photographs and 6977 segments of video footage held by NIST (and yes, you can apparently submit a FOIA, pay $13,000 and get them, I have emailed Jones about this and he responded that the non-disclosure agreements you have to sign to do so are unacceptable as you cannot share them with anyone else - for example by including them in a paper)
- access to the computer models/datasets used by the NIST. How can anyone evaluate the NIST report without this?
- blueprints of WTC, in particular the core bracing schedule from "Drawing Book 6". Has any independent agent even compared the blueprints to the NIST FEA model to see if it makes sense? This is one of the goals of 911research for example (Jim Hoffman)
I think that regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, making this information freely available should be supported by all. It's slowly trickling in thanks to the efforts of scholars for truth (and justice) (the recent blueprints were released to Steven Jones by someone who worked on the Silverstein insurance trial, without Steven Jones and "truth movement" legwork this would probably have never happened), and I hope it continues. But it's tiring to see posters here alternately claim that everything is already available (lie), or claim that it has been made available to the people "who matter". Science is based on the free availability of information and data.
There was no CROSS BRACING of the core columns (above the 9th floor) except in the Hat Truss (this IS covered in the NIST report)
Wrong. NIST 1-2A, p.2: "The primary structural systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams, and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems."
You forgot the mechanical floors! (Floors 7-8, 41-42, 75-76, and 108-109).
Note: this doesn't say anything about the other floors not having cross-bracing (not "included" in this list? part of the "secondary structural system"?)
Also, NIST 1-2A, p.13: "In addition, some information from Drawing Book 6 (core bracing schedule) and Drawing Book 9 (beams in the hat truss region) was included in the database files as it was utilized in the finite element modeling of the towers."
Why "some", why not all? What was used? What was left out? Let's see the damn core bracing schedule, let's see the FEA modeling files, let's get it in the hands of competent people and let's start analyzing it.
QUOTE
This is one of the most convincing videos that shows the squib story, don't listen to the explosion sounds because it probably is added afterwards
I would point out that puffs of air do not produce the "sounds of explosions", that explosive's "sounds" would not need to be faked to be heard and that the explosive sounds were added in an attempt to fool the viewer into thinking that puffs of air WERE explosives, something that would not be required if the puffs of air were explosives, therefore logic says the puffs of air were puffs of air, not explosives. And the person who faked the soundtrack KNOWS THIS.
So who is being disingenuous about the facts??? CTers, that's who.
Newton
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is one of the most convincing videos that shows the squib story, don't listen to the explosion sounds because it probably is added afterwards |
I would point out that puffs of air do not produce the "sounds of explosions", that explosive's "sounds" would not need to be faked to be heard and that the explosive sounds were added in an attempt to fool the viewer into thinking that puffs of air WERE explosives, something that would not be required if the puffs of air were explosives, therefore logic says the puffs of air were puffs of air, not explosives. And the person who faked the soundtrack KNOWS THIS.
So who is being disingenuous about the facts??? CTers, that's who.
Newton
of course, there are TONS of factors that prove it. the problem is overcoming the satanic-controlled media, law enforcement and government.
check out ted gunderson for good, solid research into the satanic cabal that rules america.
Sorry to see that you are having such a catastrophic mental breakdown. Where this attack was religiously motivated, it was(and is)not demons, but men who committed 9/11 in the name of their god
In your present mental state it could prove dangerous for you to be listening to the various religious charlatans(ted gunderson included), you are already having enough cognitive problems without surrendering your thought processes to someone even further off kilter than you yourself obviously are.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 11:36 AM)
the explosives do not have to be on every floor. they don't even have to be explosives, but could be energy weapons working on unknown principles.
Or it could have been caused by genetically modified, steel eating termites. They fart out chlorine and zinc fumes.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 11:36 AM)
i love the theory that a steel skyscraper provides 'no mechanical resistance'. evil emperors say such silly things.
Where did anyone say that?
There was mechanical resistance, but it was trivial compared to the energy of the moving mass of debris.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 07:36 PM)
'they' can easily keep perfectly good papers from being peer reviewed.
BS
Now all the JOURNALS, even in the UK, France, Germany etc are IN ON IT as well?
newton, can one still call it a conspiracy when, according to you, seemingly almost EVERYONE was apparently IN ON IT?
Arthur
BS
Now all the JOURNALS, even in the UK, France, Germany etc are IN ON IT as well?
newton, can one still call it a conspiracy when, according to you, seemingly almost EVERYONE was apparently IN ON IT?
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2007, 09:44 PM)
wonder where neu-fonze went?
Well, the kindly Dr. Greening has authored a movie script outline in which the central character, named "Apollo20" believes that the twin towers were brought down by evil perpetrators who secretly mixed "Ammonium perchlorate powder, probably containing manganese dioxide and other additives (e.g. Al, HMX, etc.)" into the fireproofing material added to the steel from 1995-2001.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...191#post2474191
I have hypothesized that Dr. NEU-FONZE was smitten by his conscience, and can no longer pretend to believe in his absurd gravity collapse paper.
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 29 2007, 03:10 PM)
On the other hand the pancakers want to collect as much mass as possible but that cannot explain ejection of material.
Actually, it's the opposite. It's difficult to explain how slowly the front was moving later in the collapse, especially for WTC2. Videos show the collapse front of WTC2 at least as high as the top of WTC3 at about 12 seconds into the collapse. Mass shedding can account for the slowing but there's an upper limit on the percentage shed since the pit was filled up to near the bowtie level.
For a compaction ratio of 8.5 in the pit, the total shed mass is approximately 26% of the above-ground tower mass. The higher the compaction ratio, the lower the fraction of tower mass shed.
The bowtie level was about 36 m above the bottom of the pit which is about 9.5 stories (estimated from a low-resolution architectural drawing). 8.5*9.5 gives 81 stories that can be compressed into the height of the bowtie level. Percentage mass shed = (110-81)/110 = 0.26 or 26% of the above-ground tower mass. The underground parking garage floors would occupy some space also. If 5 underground floors are included in the footprint mass, then the fraction of above-ground tower mass shed is (110-81-5)/110 = 0.31. (I haven't looked at all the details of floors in the underground area).
Hoffmans's value of 'only 6%' of the total upper block mass being shed per impact turns out to be too high by a factor of about three for WTC1 and about six for WTC2. For WTC1, 0.06*14 = 0.84 stories of shed mass per impact. For WTC2, 0.06*29 = 1.74 stories of shed mass per impact.
For WTC1, Hoffman's 6% figure means that the total amount of mass shed for stage 1 would be:
0.84 story x 96 impacts = 81 stories of shed mass
That would leave 29 stories or about 26% of the above-ground tower mass in the pit and 74% shed. It's obvious that Hoffman's 6% figure is far too high. It's even worse for WTC2.
For a more reasonable shedding percentage of 26% of the above-ground tower mass and no shedding during stage 2, the amount of story mass shed per impact during stage 1 for WTC1 is:
0.26*110/96 = 0.30 of a story mass shed per impact
That's about 2% of the mass of the upper block shed per impact for WTC1 and consistent with the observed pile height.
0.30 story mass / 14 stories = 0.02 = 2%
The 2% value adds about one second to the collapse duration for WTC1 according to a modified Greening type model with mass being shed from the collapse front just after each impact. The slowing due to E1 adds about another second. The predicted total duration including the effect of shedding and E1 is within the observed collapse duration. The front for WTC2 needs to be slowed even more and could be explained by a portion of the mass of the upper block going outside the east side of the footprint early in the collapse.
Actually, it's the opposite. It's difficult to explain how slowly the front was moving later in the collapse, especially for WTC2. Videos show the collapse front of WTC2 at least as high as the top of WTC3 at about 12 seconds into the collapse. Mass shedding can account for the slowing but there's an upper limit on the percentage shed since the pit was filled up to near the bowtie level.
For a compaction ratio of 8.5 in the pit, the total shed mass is approximately 26% of the above-ground tower mass. The higher the compaction ratio, the lower the fraction of tower mass shed.
The bowtie level was about 36 m above the bottom of the pit which is about 9.5 stories (estimated from a low-resolution architectural drawing). 8.5*9.5 gives 81 stories that can be compressed into the height of the bowtie level. Percentage mass shed = (110-81)/110 = 0.26 or 26% of the above-ground tower mass. The underground parking garage floors would occupy some space also. If 5 underground floors are included in the footprint mass, then the fraction of above-ground tower mass shed is (110-81-5)/110 = 0.31. (I haven't looked at all the details of floors in the underground area).
Hoffmans's value of 'only 6%' of the total upper block mass being shed per impact turns out to be too high by a factor of about three for WTC1 and about six for WTC2. For WTC1, 0.06*14 = 0.84 stories of shed mass per impact. For WTC2, 0.06*29 = 1.74 stories of shed mass per impact.
For WTC1, Hoffman's 6% figure means that the total amount of mass shed for stage 1 would be:
0.84 story x 96 impacts = 81 stories of shed mass
That would leave 29 stories or about 26% of the above-ground tower mass in the pit and 74% shed. It's obvious that Hoffman's 6% figure is far too high. It's even worse for WTC2.
For a more reasonable shedding percentage of 26% of the above-ground tower mass and no shedding during stage 2, the amount of story mass shed per impact during stage 1 for WTC1 is:
0.26*110/96 = 0.30 of a story mass shed per impact
That's about 2% of the mass of the upper block shed per impact for WTC1 and consistent with the observed pile height.
0.30 story mass / 14 stories = 0.02 = 2%
The 2% value adds about one second to the collapse duration for WTC1 according to a modified Greening type model with mass being shed from the collapse front just after each impact. The slowing due to E1 adds about another second. The predicted total duration including the effect of shedding and E1 is within the observed collapse duration. The front for WTC2 needs to be slowed even more and could be explained by a portion of the mass of the upper block going outside the east side of the footprint early in the collapse.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 2 2007, 02:44 PM)
beijingyank
About the same percentage think the Creation story in Genisis is a factual acount. Never underestimate the ability of the general public to be misinformed. Science is NEVER a popularity contest.
NIST did an excellent investigation and explanation of the towers collapse. Just because you have not read/understood it does not change the FACT that it stands unchallenged.
You have yet to show a single instance where molten STEEL was found anywhere in the WTC complex. Molten steel is still just a disinformation mantra from the know-nothing crowd. All such reports turned out to be bogus.
The cancer and other ailments are caused by the inhalation of dust, according to the medical community. Any speculation about nuclear devices is illogical and foolish. A nuclear event would have been obvious and would have immediately destroyed everything for blocks around the complex. The smallest nuclear explosion possible would have left a glass lined smoking crater and the electro-magnetic pulse would have wiped the memories of every video camera within line of site. There was no nuclear event on 9/11, this is just the speculations of an ignorant mind and a red herring.
Not by the experts(expert=someone who knows what he is talking about), they have already ruled out any explosives(which leave distinctive traces absent in all the data).
Already done(which you would know if you bothered to look).
Grumpy
Maybe this is old news,I don't know.But here it is anyway. You can go to YouTube and type in Meteorite 911 into the search.There you will find a video from the BBC from 3 weeks ago and another from a month ago from NBC. Both of which show a large "meteorite" like mass said to be 3 or 4 floor worth of the towers mass.
I believe both of these are proof on molten STEEL.
Also the BBC video has some very compelling testimony from officals within our current goverment
I would have posted the links but this forum will not allow newbies to do so
If these videos have already been posted I'm sorry for wasting you time.
About the same percentage think the Creation story in Genisis is a factual acount. Never underestimate the ability of the general public to be misinformed. Science is NEVER a popularity contest.
NIST did an excellent investigation and explanation of the towers collapse. Just because you have not read/understood it does not change the FACT that it stands unchallenged.
You have yet to show a single instance where molten STEEL was found anywhere in the WTC complex. Molten steel is still just a disinformation mantra from the know-nothing crowd. All such reports turned out to be bogus.
The cancer and other ailments are caused by the inhalation of dust, according to the medical community. Any speculation about nuclear devices is illogical and foolish. A nuclear event would have been obvious and would have immediately destroyed everything for blocks around the complex. The smallest nuclear explosion possible would have left a glass lined smoking crater and the electro-magnetic pulse would have wiped the memories of every video camera within line of site. There was no nuclear event on 9/11, this is just the speculations of an ignorant mind and a red herring.
Not by the experts(expert=someone who knows what he is talking about), they have already ruled out any explosives(which leave distinctive traces absent in all the data).
Already done(which you would know if you bothered to look).
Grumpy
Maybe this is old news,I don't know.But here it is anyway. You can go to YouTube and type in Meteorite 911 into the search.There you will find a video from the BBC from 3 weeks ago and another from a month ago from NBC. Both of which show a large "meteorite" like mass said to be 3 or 4 floor worth of the towers mass.
I believe both of these are proof on molten STEEL.
Also the BBC video has some very compelling testimony from officals within our current goverment
I would have posted the links but this forum will not allow newbies to do so
If these videos have already been posted I'm sorry for wasting you time.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 29 2007, 08:22 PM)
BS
Now all the JOURNALS, even in the UK, France, Germany etc are IN ON IT as well?
newton, can one still call it a conspiracy when, according to you, seemingly almost EVERYONE was apparently IN ON IT?
Arthur
let's not to forget Japan, which has a number of world class strucutral engineers.
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jsceseee/23/2/_contents
Now all the JOURNALS, even in the UK, France, Germany etc are IN ON IT as well?
newton, can one still call it a conspiracy when, according to you, seemingly almost EVERYONE was apparently IN ON IT?
Arthur
let's not to forget Japan, which has a number of world class strucutral engineers.
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jsceseee/23/2/_contents
QUOTE (AceBaker+Mar 30 2007, 05:14 AM)
Well, the kindly Dr. Greening has authored a movie script outline in which the central character, named "Apollo20" believes that the twin towers were brought down by evil perpetrators who secretly mixed "Ammonium perchlorate powder, probably containing manganese dioxide and other additives (e.g. Al, HMX, etc.)" into the fireproofing material added to the steel from 1995-2001.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...191#post2474191
I have hypothesized that Dr. NEU-FONZE was smitten by his conscience, and can no longer pretend to believe in his absurd gravity collapse paper.
I'm still not sure if NF is FR, but a quick look tells me that A20 is NF, who's quality is easy to recognize.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...191#post2474191
I have hypothesized that Dr. NEU-FONZE was smitten by his conscience, and can no longer pretend to believe in his absurd gravity collapse paper.
I'm still not sure if NF is FR, but a quick look tells me that A20 is NF, who's quality is easy to recognize.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 27 2007, 09:48 PM)
Please explain how the Documents were obtained Illegally?
The drawings are intellectual property, to access them you had to sign a non disclosure contract. Some one has violated that contract and the documents are protected under copyright infringement law.
The only company that could have released them would be, the Company who drew them in the first place.
The chain of release, does not support a legal release of the documents.
The drawings are intellectual property, to access them you had to sign a non disclosure contract. Some one has violated that contract and the documents are protected under copyright infringement law.
The only company that could have released them would be, the Company who drew them in the first place.
The chain of release, does not support a legal release of the documents.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 30 2007, 12:36 AM)
whatever.
i never suggested that the squib was a building destroying event. it was small, i said.
sorry. no downward movement from above, no (lame) excuse for a squib.
if 'they' can keep proven pedophiles out of jail, 'they' can easily keep perfectly good papers from being peer reviewed.
first the debate on global warming was yes/no(say in the 80's). now it accepted that there is global warming, and the debate is man-made/natural. in both cases, both sides are at odds with each other. it is only because ancient ice(shelves and glaciers) has RECENTLY started disappearing that the yes/no debate was silenced.
Prove it show us an Xray of the building, and that there was no hidden movement inside the structure! That is the problem there could be hidden movement inside out of view of a completely natural reaction.
i never suggested that the squib was a building destroying event. it was small, i said.
sorry. no downward movement from above, no (lame) excuse for a squib.
if 'they' can keep proven pedophiles out of jail, 'they' can easily keep perfectly good papers from being peer reviewed.
first the debate on global warming was yes/no(say in the 80's). now it accepted that there is global warming, and the debate is man-made/natural. in both cases, both sides are at odds with each other. it is only because ancient ice(shelves and glaciers) has RECENTLY started disappearing that the yes/no debate was silenced.
Prove it show us an Xray of the building, and that there was no hidden movement inside the structure! That is the problem there could be hidden movement inside out of view of a completely natural reaction.
QUOTE (Why Not+Mar 30 2007, 07:32 AM)
I would have posted the links but this forum will not allow newbies to do so
If these videos have already been posted I'm sorry for wasting you time.
Those limitations are annoying, I ran into them too initially.
But to post links, just keep the "http://" and "www" out ie: google.com
People won't be able to click on them, but they will be able to copy and paste them into the browser address bar.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 28 2007, 06:04 PM)
Certainly, since these are architectural floor plans and not framing drawings and schedules. Learn what the different professions do when designing and constructing a building.
It must really suck to get all excited about this “new discovery” only to learn that there is nothing in it that can help feed your paranoid fantasy.
BTW
You never did answer any of my questions about the bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems.
What part of an inverse square law are you still having problems with?
All the measurements of the columns and exact placement are now known. It is obvious NIST misrepresented the column size and architecture of the floors ( the stairs in the south tower were not modeled). You would need two stacks of pancakes in the South Tower for the "pancake theory".
It really must suck to live in your paranoid world with fewer and fewer people believing you ridicules fairy tale.
Your bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems is not worth responding to until you can prove it with forensic evidence or simulation ( NIST wasted 20 million trying).
Apparently NF is off his meds.
He is now apparently supporting a Christophera type scenario where rocket fuel is mixed in with the SFRM that was applied during the upgrade.
Link to JFEF debate
By Apollo20 AKA NEU-FONZE
Ammonium perchlorate, NH4ClO4, is a colorless, odorless, compound that is stable at room temperature. However, when heated to above 300 °C, or subjected to friction or impact, it becomes violently reactive. In fact, ammonium perchlorate is a much-used ingredient in explosives, pyrothechnics and solid propellants such as those used in the space shuttle booster rockets.
The decomposition reactions of ammonium perchlorate are complex and variable: Cl2, HCl, NH3, N2O, NO, N2, H2O and O2 have been consistently observed as major products. The decomposition reaction is highly exothermic, releasing about 2 MJ/kg of heat energy, and is accompanied by the production of about 800 liters/kg of gases. The combustion of ammonium perchlorate in oxygen-rich atmospheres produces a diffusion flame at about 3200 °C
The decomposition of samples of pure ammonium perchlorate at 225 °C is 25 % complete after 4 hours. However, if the ammonium perchlorate is mixed with suitable metal oxide catalysts the decomposition is accelerated. Among the large number of metal oxides that have been investigated as AP decomposition catalysts, such as Al2O3, CaO, Fe2O3 and MnO2, manganese dioxide is found to be by far the most effective. Thus an addition of 10 % by weight of MnO2 to ammonium perchlorate increases the decomposition rate by a factor of about 2. Based on these properties of ammonium perchlorate / manganese dioxide mixtures, the following scenario is presented as a new collapse theory:
1. The Twin Towers were Primed with AP:
Ammonium perchlorate powder, probably containing manganese dioxide and other additives (e.g. Al, HMX, etc.), was prepared and mixed with a binding agent (polysulfide?) and one or more of the five spray-on fire resistive (thermal insulation) materials used in WTC 1 & 2. These materials are identified in NIST NCSTAR 1-6A as: (1) Blaze-shield Type D, (2) Blaze-shield Type DC/F, (3) Blaze-shield Type II, (4) Monokote MK-5, and (5) Vermiculite aggregate plaster. In order to determine where and when these material were applied to surfaces in the Twin Towers we need to consider the history of the “passive fire protection” practices employed by the New York Port Authority during and after the construction of the towers, starting in 1970 and ending in 2001.
On April 13, 1970, New York City issued a ban on the use of all sprayed on thermal insulations containing asbestos, the notorious fibrous silicate mineral that was a major component of Blaze-shield Type D. The use of asbestos-containing insulation was discontinued at this time at the 38th floor of WTC 1. In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
How much thermal protection was used? A reasonable estimate would be a thickness of 2 cm over an effective area of 2500 m2 or 50 m3 per floor. If we assume the material had a density of 400 kg/m3 there would have been 20 tonnes of thermal protection per floor.
It should be noted that the specific floor selection would have been made on the basis of the need to apply fire protection material to a particular area. Thus protection would have been sprayed on areas that were known to be vulnerable to fire damage. However, in the AP theory, the fire protector was, in fact, a fire accelerant or pyrotechnic, most probably an ammonium perchlorate/manganese dioxide mixture blended with a portland cement-based binder, or something similar. Given the fact that upgrading of the passive fire protection of WTC 1 & 2 was an on-going project throughout the late 1990s, a deadly pyrotechnic coating could have been applied almost anywhere and at any time during this period. If we assume that the normal cement-based material was “spiked” with 25 wt.% of our pyrotechnic mixture, up to 5 tonnes of ammonium perchlorate could have been sprayed onto a designated floor. Furthermore, once applied to a particular floor, the coating would have remained undisturbed, unnoticed, and with no loss of potency, until it was triggered by the events of September 11th 2001.
2. Boeing 767 Aircraft Strike the Towers and Start Fires
It is documented in the NIST and FEMA WTC Reports that the aircraft strikes on the Twin Towers on the morning of September 11th 2001 inflicted major structural damage to several floors of each tower. NIST’s assessment of the damage is based on modeling of a Boeing 767 aircraft, weighing about 125 tonnes and traveling at about 500 mph, crashing into each tower and igniting about 30 tons of jet fuel. A spectacular fireball was seen after each aircraft impact and the blast overpressure caused considerable damage to office furniture, wallboards, ceiling tiles and windows on the impacted floors. However, it is believed that this over-pressure was insufficient to have damaged the structural steel support columns; hence, structural damage that did occur was inflicted by direct kinetic energy transfer.
On the other hand, if ammonium perchlorate-impregnated insulation was pre-planted on the upper floors of the Twin Towers and was subsequently subjected to hard impact, a violent detonation would have occurred which would have greatly intensified the energy release compared to a simple fuel-air deflagration. What is more important, however, is that the protracted fires that followed the aircraft impacts would have been more damaging than expected if the upper floors of the towers were primed with ammonium perchlorate - a potent oxidizing agent that would have been activated as the surface temperatures in affected areas reached 250-300 °C.
Just a movie script (like Jones' script; like Wood's script).
Please don't ask me to defend a movie script/theory.........
But then he does
AP requires no det cord, no wiring, no timers, just a bit of HEAT.
Who cares where the planes hit.
AP explains the collapse delay... it had to be heated to its ignition temperature first.
And it leaves no evidence, no trace, except some acid gases....
And a smoking rubble pile full of residual rocket fuel.
But, hey, its just a movie script!
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
He is now apparently supporting a Christophera type scenario where rocket fuel is mixed in with the SFRM that was applied during the upgrade.
Link to JFEF debate
By Apollo20 AKA NEU-FONZE
Ammonium perchlorate, NH4ClO4, is a colorless, odorless, compound that is stable at room temperature. However, when heated to above 300 °C, or subjected to friction or impact, it becomes violently reactive. In fact, ammonium perchlorate is a much-used ingredient in explosives, pyrothechnics and solid propellants such as those used in the space shuttle booster rockets.
The decomposition reactions of ammonium perchlorate are complex and variable: Cl2, HCl, NH3, N2O, NO, N2, H2O and O2 have been consistently observed as major products. The decomposition reaction is highly exothermic, releasing about 2 MJ/kg of heat energy, and is accompanied by the production of about 800 liters/kg of gases. The combustion of ammonium perchlorate in oxygen-rich atmospheres produces a diffusion flame at about 3200 °C
The decomposition of samples of pure ammonium perchlorate at 225 °C is 25 % complete after 4 hours. However, if the ammonium perchlorate is mixed with suitable metal oxide catalysts the decomposition is accelerated. Among the large number of metal oxides that have been investigated as AP decomposition catalysts, such as Al2O3, CaO, Fe2O3 and MnO2, manganese dioxide is found to be by far the most effective. Thus an addition of 10 % by weight of MnO2 to ammonium perchlorate increases the decomposition rate by a factor of about 2. Based on these properties of ammonium perchlorate / manganese dioxide mixtures, the following scenario is presented as a new collapse theory:
1. The Twin Towers were Primed with AP:
Ammonium perchlorate powder, probably containing manganese dioxide and other additives (e.g. Al, HMX, etc.), was prepared and mixed with a binding agent (polysulfide?) and one or more of the five spray-on fire resistive (thermal insulation) materials used in WTC 1 & 2. These materials are identified in NIST NCSTAR 1-6A as: (1) Blaze-shield Type D, (2) Blaze-shield Type DC/F, (3) Blaze-shield Type II, (4) Monokote MK-5, and (5) Vermiculite aggregate plaster. In order to determine where and when these material were applied to surfaces in the Twin Towers we need to consider the history of the “passive fire protection” practices employed by the New York Port Authority during and after the construction of the towers, starting in 1970 and ending in 2001.
On April 13, 1970, New York City issued a ban on the use of all sprayed on thermal insulations containing asbestos, the notorious fibrous silicate mineral that was a major component of Blaze-shield Type D. The use of asbestos-containing insulation was discontinued at this time at the 38th floor of WTC 1. In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
How much thermal protection was used? A reasonable estimate would be a thickness of 2 cm over an effective area of 2500 m2 or 50 m3 per floor. If we assume the material had a density of 400 kg/m3 there would have been 20 tonnes of thermal protection per floor.
It should be noted that the specific floor selection would have been made on the basis of the need to apply fire protection material to a particular area. Thus protection would have been sprayed on areas that were known to be vulnerable to fire damage. However, in the AP theory, the fire protector was, in fact, a fire accelerant or pyrotechnic, most probably an ammonium perchlorate/manganese dioxide mixture blended with a portland cement-based binder, or something similar. Given the fact that upgrading of the passive fire protection of WTC 1 & 2 was an on-going project throughout the late 1990s, a deadly pyrotechnic coating could have been applied almost anywhere and at any time during this period. If we assume that the normal cement-based material was “spiked” with 25 wt.% of our pyrotechnic mixture, up to 5 tonnes of ammonium perchlorate could have been sprayed onto a designated floor. Furthermore, once applied to a particular floor, the coating would have remained undisturbed, unnoticed, and with no loss of potency, until it was triggered by the events of September 11th 2001.
2. Boeing 767 Aircraft Strike the Towers and Start Fires
It is documented in the NIST and FEMA WTC Reports that the aircraft strikes on the Twin Towers on the morning of September 11th 2001 inflicted major structural damage to several floors of each tower. NIST’s assessment of the damage is based on modeling of a Boeing 767 aircraft, weighing about 125 tonnes and traveling at about 500 mph, crashing into each tower and igniting about 30 tons of jet fuel. A spectacular fireball was seen after each aircraft impact and the blast overpressure caused considerable damage to office furniture, wallboards, ceiling tiles and windows on the impacted floors. However, it is believed that this over-pressure was insufficient to have damaged the structural steel support columns; hence, structural damage that did occur was inflicted by direct kinetic energy transfer.
On the other hand, if ammonium perchlorate-impregnated insulation was pre-planted on the upper floors of the Twin Towers and was subsequently subjected to hard impact, a violent detonation would have occurred which would have greatly intensified the energy release compared to a simple fuel-air deflagration. What is more important, however, is that the protracted fires that followed the aircraft impacts would have been more damaging than expected if the upper floors of the towers were primed with ammonium perchlorate - a potent oxidizing agent that would have been activated as the surface temperatures in affected areas reached 250-300 °C.
Just a movie script (like Jones' script; like Wood's script).
Please don't ask me to defend a movie script/theory.........
But then he does
AP requires no det cord, no wiring, no timers, just a bit of HEAT.
Who cares where the planes hit.
AP explains the collapse delay... it had to be heated to its ignition temperature first.
And it leaves no evidence, no trace, except some acid gases....
And a smoking rubble pile full of residual rocket fuel.
But, hey, its just a movie script!
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
There is one thing that I can simply not understand. I have see many times that people who are defending the official story saying something like that: Sure people can see the bluprints of the wtc... one just have to buy them etc etc... everybody can see them...and so on
But now it is clearly obvious that the blueprints are not available.
The prints that were leaked looks to me (and I am not an expert) as just a small part of the blueprints.
So, is it not safe to say that most of the blueprints are hidden from public view?
My conclusion is: Yes.
And why ? Because they dont want people to know how massive and strong the wtc structure was.
If someone will see the orginal blueprints... then everyone could see that the official story is more than impossible.
But what is maybe hardest for me to understand is, how is it possible to keep the blueprint secret for so long time. It is unbelivenble.
But now it is clearly obvious that the blueprints are not available.
The prints that were leaked looks to me (and I am not an expert) as just a small part of the blueprints.
So, is it not safe to say that most of the blueprints are hidden from public view?
My conclusion is: Yes.
And why ? Because they dont want people to know how massive and strong the wtc structure was.
If someone will see the orginal blueprints... then everyone could see that the official story is more than impossible.
But what is maybe hardest for me to understand is, how is it possible to keep the blueprint secret for so long time. It is unbelivenble.
QUOTE (Daru+Mar 30 2007, 07:56 AM)
So, is it not safe to say that most of the blueprints are hidden from public view?
Most of the pertinent design criteria documents were scanned in and are part of the NIST reports.
real structural engineers can look at those and understand the structural desing of the building.
The structural design was actually fairly simple. It was studied by engineering students as a classic example of modern skyscraper design long before 9/11.
All of the strucutral details that RW is harping about are in the NIST reports.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 30 2007, 01:43 PM)
All the measurements of the columns and exact placement are now known. It is obvious NIST misrepresented the column size and architecture of the floors ( the stairs in the south tower were not modeled). You would need two stacks of pancakes in the South Tower for the "pancake theory".
It really must suck to live in your paranoid world with fewer and fewer people believing you ridicules fairy tale.
Your bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems is not worth responding to until you can prove it with forensic evidence or simulation ( NIST wasted 20 million trying).
NO they are not, the actual engineering documents are not in public view at this moment, they even show the v grove grind on the central core columns and the weld placement on the exterior columns.
What you have is the preliminary floor plan, I am still curious though why the change in welding rods as the buildings went higher.
The preliminary plans went to Robertson, and he then designed the structure, the engineering drawings are what Nist used, they were not that concerned with toilet placement.
There is also something funny about these documents, they look like they were auto cad and auto cad did not exist at the time of the world trade center development. Although many symbols in auto cad, and preliminary printings before auto cad are the same, they require more study.
I wonder if this is not a preliminary renovation floor plan?
I have to compare them sometime in the future with the originals.
It really must suck to live in your paranoid world with fewer and fewer people believing you ridicules fairy tale.
Your bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems is not worth responding to until you can prove it with forensic evidence or simulation ( NIST wasted 20 million trying).
NO they are not, the actual engineering documents are not in public view at this moment, they even show the v grove grind on the central core columns and the weld placement on the exterior columns.
What you have is the preliminary floor plan, I am still curious though why the change in welding rods as the buildings went higher.
The preliminary plans went to Robertson, and he then designed the structure, the engineering drawings are what Nist used, they were not that concerned with toilet placement.
There is also something funny about these documents, they look like they were auto cad and auto cad did not exist at the time of the world trade center development. Although many symbols in auto cad, and preliminary printings before auto cad are the same, they require more study.
I wonder if this is not a preliminary renovation floor plan?
I have to compare them sometime in the future with the originals.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 30 2007, 07:53 AM)
Apparently NF is off his meds.
He is now apparently supporting a Christophera type scenario where rocket fuel is mixed in with the SFRM that was applied during the upgrade.
NO.
It was genticaly modified, chlorine powered, steel eating, zinc farting termites I tell you!
BTW, is Chistophera still clinging to the theory that the towers had concrete cores?
He is now apparently supporting a Christophera type scenario where rocket fuel is mixed in with the SFRM that was applied during the upgrade.
NO.
It was genticaly modified, chlorine powered, steel eating, zinc farting termites I tell you!
BTW, is Chistophera still clinging to the theory that the towers had concrete cores?
reasonwhy
As if the lack of response from you would not be seen as a plus and improvement on this forum. The NIST scenario still stands unchallenged, especially by lightweights such as yourself.
Daru
The blueprints ARE available, if you pay the owner thereof the considerable expense of producing copies. It is intellectual property NIST was not legally entitled to release, though they were entitled to examine them. The same goes for the photos and videos they used in their investigations. Nobody is hiding anything any more than than Justine Timberlake is hiding his music from me just because I refuse to pay for his CDs.
Why Not
The "meteorite", which NIST keeps in storage at Kennedy, contains PAPER, FABRICS and other flamable materials that would not have survived if the metal in the chunk had melted. It is only the COMPACTED remains of several floors and is typical of the debris removed from the subbasement levels.
Again, no molten pools of steel were found anywhere in the WTC complex, PERIOD.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Your bowing of the exterior columns and the evident loss of lateral support from the floor systems is not worth responding to until you can prove it with forensic evidence or simulation ( NIST wasted 20 million trying).
As if the lack of response from you would not be seen as a plus and improvement on this forum. The NIST scenario still stands unchallenged, especially by lightweights such as yourself.
Daru
The blueprints ARE available, if you pay the owner thereof the considerable expense of producing copies. It is intellectual property NIST was not legally entitled to release, though they were entitled to examine them. The same goes for the photos and videos they used in their investigations. Nobody is hiding anything any more than than Justine Timberlake is hiding his music from me just because I refuse to pay for his CDs.
Why Not
The "meteorite", which NIST keeps in storage at Kennedy, contains PAPER, FABRICS and other flamable materials that would not have survived if the metal in the chunk had melted. It is only the COMPACTED remains of several floors and is typical of the debris removed from the subbasement levels.
Again, no molten pools of steel were found anywhere in the WTC complex, PERIOD.
Grumpy
The blueprints are not in the Nist report. It is impossible to figure out from Nist how the structure really was. The small part of the blueprints which was leaked show much much more detail than Nist.
But the big question is: Where are all the orginal blueprints, every detail etc... why are they hiding it ?
Simply because the orginal blueprints show that the official story is impossible. Period.
But the big question is: Where are all the orginal blueprints, every detail etc... why are they hiding it ?
Simply because the orginal blueprints show that the official story is impossible. Period.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 30 2007, 02:18 PM)
NO.
It was genticaly modified, chlorine powered, steel eating, zinc farting termites I tell you!
BTW, is Chistophera still clinging to the theory that the towers had concrete cores?
If NF. is referring to a sulfate used in the concrete, reacting with the steel floor pans in a chemical reaction induced by the jet fuel, then I have no choice but to consider that he is correct in that assessment as it is completely possible and I have tested the reaction myself and it is plausible and would add significant heat and fuel to the collapse.
I wish that NF, had expressed his theory more before he left, but that was up to him, he seemed to be such and intelligent poster, the forum is at a loss that he seems to be absent now.
Calcium nitrate and calcium thiosulfate are also considered accelerators
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/mat...rp/acclerat.htm
The basic concept is valid, and if there was a chlorine reaction with some other material, in the proximity to a literally burning steel reaction, then the potential for the production of temperatures over 2000 c is highly likely.
Of course this is just speculation based on the known consistent in the buildings construction and on the little references made by NF. but it is a fascinating concept. It is also a disturbing one as thousands of other buildings have similar construction world wide.
Curiosity made me take a look at this, as in all I have done regarding the World Trade Center and 9/11/2001.
It was genticaly modified, chlorine powered, steel eating, zinc farting termites I tell you!
BTW, is Chistophera still clinging to the theory that the towers had concrete cores?
If NF. is referring to a sulfate used in the concrete, reacting with the steel floor pans in a chemical reaction induced by the jet fuel, then I have no choice but to consider that he is correct in that assessment as it is completely possible and I have tested the reaction myself and it is plausible and would add significant heat and fuel to the collapse.
I wish that NF, had expressed his theory more before he left, but that was up to him, he seemed to be such and intelligent poster, the forum is at a loss that he seems to be absent now.
Calcium nitrate and calcium thiosulfate are also considered accelerators
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/mat...rp/acclerat.htm
The basic concept is valid, and if there was a chlorine reaction with some other material, in the proximity to a literally burning steel reaction, then the potential for the production of temperatures over 2000 c is highly likely.
Of course this is just speculation based on the known consistent in the buildings construction and on the little references made by NF. but it is a fascinating concept. It is also a disturbing one as thousands of other buildings have similar construction world wide.
Curiosity made me take a look at this, as in all I have done regarding the World Trade Center and 9/11/2001.
The important point though, is that IF these reactions occurred, then they would still lead to the SAME gravitational collapse that NIST modeled.
I sort of doubt that this was a SIGNIFICANT factor though as NIST's models and the actual time frame to collapse were reasonably the same.
If you add a significant source of ADDITIONAL energy to the equation you would then expect a significantly faster time to collapse.
Arthur
I sort of doubt that this was a SIGNIFICANT factor though as NIST's models and the actual time frame to collapse were reasonably the same.
If you add a significant source of ADDITIONAL energy to the equation you would then expect a significantly faster time to collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (Daru+Mar 30 2007, 10:43 AM)
It is impossible to figure out from Nist how the structure really was. The small part of the blueprints which was leaked show much much more detail than Nist.
But the big question is: Where are all the orginal blueprints, every detail etc... why are they hiding it ?
Simply because the orginal blueprints show that the official story is impossible. Period.
NIST doesn't OWN the blueprints, they are the property of the PANYNJ.
NIST did release enough (with the consent of PANYNJ) so that one can determine how the buildings were put together.
They DO show the floor plans for the floors, the Extrenal Column schedules, the Core Column Schedules, the Truss material Schedules, the Floor material Schedules and the Truss seat schedules for ALL THE FLOORS in and near the impact area/fire area.
They have ALSO shared them with several other groups of qualified researchers, so they are NOT hiding them.
This is, and has always been a Red Herring, brought up by Troothers when they run out of any realistic arguments.
"If we ONLY had the blueprints"
Arthur
But the big question is: Where are all the orginal blueprints, every detail etc... why are they hiding it ?
Simply because the orginal blueprints show that the official story is impossible. Period.
NIST doesn't OWN the blueprints, they are the property of the PANYNJ.
NIST did release enough (with the consent of PANYNJ) so that one can determine how the buildings were put together.
They DO show the floor plans for the floors, the Extrenal Column schedules, the Core Column Schedules, the Truss material Schedules, the Floor material Schedules and the Truss seat schedules for ALL THE FLOORS in and near the impact area/fire area.
They have ALSO shared them with several other groups of qualified researchers, so they are NOT hiding them.
This is, and has always been a Red Herring, brought up by Troothers when they run out of any realistic arguments.
"If we ONLY had the blueprints"
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 30 2007, 08:23 AM)
They DO show the floor plans for the floors, the Extrenal Column schedules, the Core Column Schedules, the Truss material Schedules, the Floor material Schedules and the Truss seat schedules for ALL THE FLOORS in and near the impact area/fire area.
"If we ONLY had the blueprints"
Arthur
BS, please give page number were NIST shows the layout of the floors in the south tower?
I have not seen any reference to the stairs from the mechanical floors to the 83 floor in the south tower (essentially cutting the open office space in half).
They might show the columns size in an appendix however NIST does not use this information for the simulations.
Daru
As I said, if you want the blueprints send a considerable wad of cash(in the tens of thousands of dollars)to the Port Authority, NY,NY. They are not hiden, but they also are not free.
NIST conducted a professional investigation using all available data. Over 200 professional scientists working in their fields of expertise cooperated in coming to the conclusions in their reports. What makes your erronious opinions of their work any more valid than those other tin hatters who have come and gone here??? What special knowledge do you claim to possess that the 200+ scientists of NIST don't understand, that leads you to say something as stupid as "the official story is impossible"??? Do you even know what the official story is???
Troll much???
Grumpy
QUOTE
The blueprints are not in the Nist report. It is impossible to figure out from Nist how the structure really was. The small part of the blueprints which was leaked show much much more detail than Nist.
But the big question is: Where are all the orginal blueprints, every detail etc... why are they hiding it ?
Simply because the orginal blueprints show that the official story is impossible. Period.
But the big question is: Where are all the orginal blueprints, every detail etc... why are they hiding it ?
Simply because the orginal blueprints show that the official story is impossible. Period.
As I said, if you want the blueprints send a considerable wad of cash(in the tens of thousands of dollars)to the Port Authority, NY,NY. They are not hiden, but they also are not free.
NIST conducted a professional investigation using all available data. Over 200 professional scientists working in their fields of expertise cooperated in coming to the conclusions in their reports. What makes your erronious opinions of their work any more valid than those other tin hatters who have come and gone here??? What special knowledge do you claim to possess that the 200+ scientists of NIST don't understand, that leads you to say something as stupid as "the official story is impossible"??? Do you even know what the official story is???
Troll much???
Grumpy
reasonlesswhine
Do your own research, ye picker of nits.
QUOTE
BS, please give page number were NIST shows the layout of the floors in the south tower?
Do your own research, ye picker of nits.
QUOTE
NIST doesn't OWN the blueprints, they are the property of the PANYNJ.
NIST did release enough (with the consent of PANYNJ) so that one can determine how the buildings were put together.
NIST did release enough (with the consent of PANYNJ) so that one can determine how the buildings were put together.
The exact structure of the core in particular the cross-bracing of the core columns is still a mystery.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NIST doesn't OWN the blueprints, they are the property of the PANYNJ. NIST did release enough (with the consent of PANYNJ) so that one can determine how the buildings were put together. |
The exact structure of the core in particular the cross-bracing of the core columns is still a mystery.
They DO show the floor plans for the floors, the Extrenal Column schedules, the Core Column Schedules, the Truss material Schedules, the Floor material Schedules and the Truss seat schedules for ALL THE FLOORS in and near the impact area/fire area.
Perhaps "all the floors IN AND NEAR THE IMPACT AREA/FIRE" would be a bit less misleading. But I guess the other floors are of no concern to the NIST as they are not interested in what happens after "collapse initation".
QUOTE
They have ALSO shared them with several other groups of qualified researchers, so they are NOT hiding them.
Source? Define a "qualified researcher". Who makes the call? Why not release the information to the public? While you're at it list some peer reviewed published independant critiques/assessments of the NIST report by "qualified" structural engineers.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 30 2007, 08:44 AM)
reasonlesswhine
Do your own research, ye picker of nits.
This question was not for the ignorant OCT that have no idea what is in the report.
Do your own research, ye picker of nits.
This question was not for the ignorant OCT that have no idea what is in the report.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 30 2007, 11:38 AM)
BS, please give page number were NIST shows the layout of the floors in the south tower?
They might show the columns size in an appendix however NIST does not use this information for the simulations.
The WTC 2 floor layouts are in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F starting on pg 126.
They show the stairs (which are also in another NIST Report) and they do not, as you claim, cut the open floor space in half.
As to your second BS assertion, see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Section 2.3.2.
Arthur
They might show the columns size in an appendix however NIST does not use this information for the simulations.
The WTC 2 floor layouts are in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F starting on pg 126.
They show the stairs (which are also in another NIST Report) and they do not, as you claim, cut the open floor space in half.
As to your second BS assertion, see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Section 2.3.2.
Arthur
QUOTE (Daru+Mar 30 2007, 09:43 AM)
The blueprints are not in the Nist report. It is impossible to figure out from Nist how the structure really was.
There is an incredible amount of detail in the NIST report on the structural design.
What is your basis for claiming that the data provided by the NIST report is insufficient to understand structural design?
Are you a structural engineer?
There is an incredible amount of detail in the NIST report on the structural design.
What is your basis for claiming that the data provided by the NIST report is insufficient to understand structural design?
Are you a structural engineer?
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 30 2007, 11:45 AM)
The exact structure of the core in particular the cross-bracing of the core columns is still a mystery.
Perhaps "all the floors IN AND NEAR THE IMPACT AREA/FIRE" would be a bit less misleading. But I guess the other floors are of no concern to the NIST as they are not interested in what happens after "collapse initation".
Source? Define a "qualified researcher". Who makes the call? Why not release the information to the public? While you're at it list some peer reviewed published independant critiques/assessments of the NIST report by "qualified" structural engineers.
Researchers at both Berkley and Purdue that I know of. Possibly others that I don't. The point is that both of these groups had the skills and background and resources and NEED to utilize the blueprints, and NIST/PANYNJ made them available. At this point we know that MANY HUNDREDS of people have seen them. So calling them SECRET is clearly FALSE.
They both have issued papers/reports that supported NISTs fundamental conclusions.
There was no CROSS BRACING of the core columns (above the 9th floor) except in the Hat Truss (this IS covered in the NIST report)
The exact floor plans outside the impact zone are not important outside of the fire/impact zone. The interior and exterior column schedules however for each individual floor WERE used in the Global models. See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Chap 7 Summary and the following Appendices.
Arthur
Perhaps "all the floors IN AND NEAR THE IMPACT AREA/FIRE" would be a bit less misleading. But I guess the other floors are of no concern to the NIST as they are not interested in what happens after "collapse initation".
Source? Define a "qualified researcher". Who makes the call? Why not release the information to the public? While you're at it list some peer reviewed published independant critiques/assessments of the NIST report by "qualified" structural engineers.
Researchers at both Berkley and Purdue that I know of. Possibly others that I don't. The point is that both of these groups had the skills and background and resources and NEED to utilize the blueprints, and NIST/PANYNJ made them available. At this point we know that MANY HUNDREDS of people have seen them. So calling them SECRET is clearly FALSE.
They both have issued papers/reports that supported NISTs fundamental conclusions.
There was no CROSS BRACING of the core columns (above the 9th floor) except in the Hat Truss (this IS covered in the NIST report)
The exact floor plans outside the impact zone are not important outside of the fire/impact zone. The interior and exterior column schedules however for each individual floor WERE used in the Global models. See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Chap 7 Summary and the following Appendices.
Arthur
QUOTE
Researchers at both Berkley and Purdue that I know of. Possibly others that I don't. The point is that both of these groups had the skills and background and resources and NEED to utilize the blueprints, and NIST/PANYNJ made them available. At this point we know that MANY HUNDREDS of people have seen them. So calling them SECRET is clearly FALSE.
Are you saying people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, scholars for truth etc do not have the "need" to see this information? because they aren't "serious" researchers? On the one hand you bemoan the fact that they haven't published any paper in a major journal, but on the other hand you seem to be OK with the withholding of data from these groups. One of their main complaints they seem to have is that they do not have access to enough data to do their research properly. For example:
- access to the 6899 photographs and 6977 segments of video footage held by NIST (and yes, you can apparently submit a FOIA, pay $13,000 and get them, I have emailed Jones about this and he responded that the non-disclosure agreements you have to sign to do so are unacceptable as you cannot share them with anyone else - for example by including them in a paper)
- access to the computer models/datasets used by the NIST. How can anyone evaluate the NIST report without this?
- blueprints of WTC, in particular the core bracing schedule from "Drawing Book 6". Has any independent agent even compared the blueprints to the NIST FEA model to see if it makes sense? This is one of the goals of 911research for example (Jim Hoffman)
I think that regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, making this information freely available should be supported by all. It's slowly trickling in thanks to the efforts of scholars for truth (and justice) (the recent blueprints were released to Steven Jones by someone who worked on the Silverstein insurance trial, without Steven Jones and "truth movement" legwork this would probably have never happened), and I hope it continues. But it's tiring to see posters here alternately claim that everything is already available (lie), or claim that it has been made available to the people "who matter". Science is based on the free availability of information and data.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Researchers at both Berkley and Purdue that I know of. Possibly others that I don't. The point is that both of these groups had the skills and background and resources and NEED to utilize the blueprints, and NIST/PANYNJ made them available. At this point we know that MANY HUNDREDS of people have seen them. So calling them SECRET is clearly FALSE. |
Are you saying people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, scholars for truth etc do not have the "need" to see this information? because they aren't "serious" researchers? On the one hand you bemoan the fact that they haven't published any paper in a major journal, but on the other hand you seem to be OK with the withholding of data from these groups. One of their main complaints they seem to have is that they do not have access to enough data to do their research properly. For example:
- access to the 6899 photographs and 6977 segments of video footage held by NIST (and yes, you can apparently submit a FOIA, pay $13,000 and get them, I have emailed Jones about this and he responded that the non-disclosure agreements you have to sign to do so are unacceptable as you cannot share them with anyone else - for example by including them in a paper)
- access to the computer models/datasets used by the NIST. How can anyone evaluate the NIST report without this?
- blueprints of WTC, in particular the core bracing schedule from "Drawing Book 6". Has any independent agent even compared the blueprints to the NIST FEA model to see if it makes sense? This is one of the goals of 911research for example (Jim Hoffman)
I think that regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, making this information freely available should be supported by all. It's slowly trickling in thanks to the efforts of scholars for truth (and justice) (the recent blueprints were released to Steven Jones by someone who worked on the Silverstein insurance trial, without Steven Jones and "truth movement" legwork this would probably have never happened), and I hope it continues. But it's tiring to see posters here alternately claim that everything is already available (lie), or claim that it has been made available to the people "who matter". Science is based on the free availability of information and data.
There was no CROSS BRACING of the core columns (above the 9th floor) except in the Hat Truss (this IS covered in the NIST report)
Wrong. NIST 1-2A, p.2: "The primary structural systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams, and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems."
You forgot the mechanical floors! (Floors 7-8, 41-42, 75-76, and 108-109).
Note: this doesn't say anything about the other floors not having cross-bracing (not "included" in this list? part of the "secondary structural system"?)
Also, NIST 1-2A, p.13: "In addition, some information from Drawing Book 6 (core bracing schedule) and Drawing Book 9 (beams in the hat truss region) was included in the database files as it was utilized in the finite element modeling of the towers."
Why "some", why not all? What was used? What was left out? Let's see the damn core bracing schedule, let's see the FEA modeling files, let's get it in the hands of competent people and let's start analyzing it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 30 2007, 04:15 PM)
The important point though, is that IF these reactions occurred, then they would still lead to the SAME gravitational collapse that NIST modeled.
I sort of doubt that this was a SIGNIFICANT factor though as NIST's models and the actual time frame to collapse were reasonably the same.
If you add a significant source of ADDITIONAL energy to the equation you would then expect a significantly faster time to collapse.
Arthur
Actually if this reaction occurred, the truth movement for all established purposes is dead, because it points to the society of engineers conclusion that Burning metal heated the buildings framework, and that plus the damage from impact lead to a collapse as burning floor pans would rain hot Iron Oxide into pooled aluminum causing a chain reaction Thermite like event.
It is similar to Dr. Greening's and Prof Eagar's original suggestion, only this time the source of the heat damaging the structure and causing the quicklime process would be known, it also supports Mr. Mark Ferrans Ideas.
It also points to serious problems that could occur in other buildings, I simply must look into it more before I comment further it is now a possible building safety issue.
It would essentially be like melting aluminum then taking a cutting torch and raining hot Iron oxide into the aluminum disrupting the oxide layer in the process, causing a oxide reaction between the Aluminum and the Iron oxide.
I also want to add that it would be a natural gravitational collapse just like NIST Modeled, only with higher heat and energy values and more energetic effects.
I only wish that NF, had expressed his Ideas in a more complete manor.
I sort of doubt that this was a SIGNIFICANT factor though as NIST's models and the actual time frame to collapse were reasonably the same.
If you add a significant source of ADDITIONAL energy to the equation you would then expect a significantly faster time to collapse.
Arthur
Actually if this reaction occurred, the truth movement for all established purposes is dead, because it points to the society of engineers conclusion that Burning metal heated the buildings framework, and that plus the damage from impact lead to a collapse as burning floor pans would rain hot Iron Oxide into pooled aluminum causing a chain reaction Thermite like event.
It is similar to Dr. Greening's and Prof Eagar's original suggestion, only this time the source of the heat damaging the structure and causing the quicklime process would be known, it also supports Mr. Mark Ferrans Ideas.
It also points to serious problems that could occur in other buildings, I simply must look into it more before I comment further it is now a possible building safety issue.
It would essentially be like melting aluminum then taking a cutting torch and raining hot Iron oxide into the aluminum disrupting the oxide layer in the process, causing a oxide reaction between the Aluminum and the Iron oxide.
I also want to add that it would be a natural gravitational collapse just like NIST Modeled, only with higher heat and energy values and more energetic effects.
I only wish that NF, had expressed his Ideas in a more complete manor.
lozenge124
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!!!
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!!!
...scholars for truth (and justice)...
DUDE, I blew milk out of my nose on this one!!! Great comedy, you ought to be on Letterman!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
...scholars for truth ...
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...scholars for truth ... |
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!!!
...scholars for truth (and justice)...
DUDE, I blew milk out of my nose on this one!!! Great comedy, you ought to be on Letterman!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 30 2007, 01:25 PM)
Are you saying people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, scholars for truth etc do not have the "need" to see this information? because they aren't "serious" researchers? On the one hand you bemoan the fact that they haven't published any paper in a major journal, but on the other hand you seem to be OK with the withholding of data from these groups. One of their main complaints they seem to have is that they do not have access to enough data to do their research properly. For example:
- access to the 6899 photographs and 6977 segments of video footage held by NIST (and yes, you can apparently submit a FOIA, pay $13,000 and get them, I have emailed Jones about this and he responded that the non-disclosure agreements you have to sign to do so are unacceptable as you cannot share them with anyone else - for example by including them in a paper)
- access to the computer models/datasets used by the NIST. How can anyone evaluate the NIST report without this?
- blueprints of WTC, in particular the core bracing schedule from "Drawing Book 6". Has any independent agent even compared the blueprints to the NIST FEA model to see if it makes sense? This is one of the goals of 911research for example (Jim Hoffman)
I think that regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, making this information freely available should be supported by all. It's slowly trickling in thanks to the efforts of scholars for truth (and justice) (the recent blueprints were released to Steven Jones by someone who worked on the Silverstein insurance trial, without Steven Jones and "truth movement" legwork this would probably have never happened), and I hope it continues. But it's tiring to see posters here alternately claim that everything is already available (lie), or claim that it has been made available to the people "who matter". Science is based on the free availability of information and data.
Wrong. NIST 1-2A, p.2: "The primary structural systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams, and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems."
You forgot the mechanical floors! (Floors 7-8, 41-42, 75-76, and 108-109).
Note: this doesn't say anything about the other floors not having cross-bracing (not "included" in this list? part of the "secondary structural system"?)
Also, NIST 1-2A, p.13: "In addition, some information from Drawing Book 6 (core bracing schedule) and Drawing Book 9 (beams in the hat truss region) was included in the database files as it was utilized in the finite element modeling of the towers."
Why "some", why not all? What was used? What was left out? Let's see the damn core bracing schedule, let's see the FEA modeling files, let's get it in the hands of competent people and let's start analyzing it.
YAWN
You're right, I forgot the bracing on the mech floors. My bad. But there wasn't bracing on the normal floors on the core, which was my point.
No I don't think Steven Jones or Jim Hoffman or Judy Woods are SERIOUS researchers.
Do you REALLY think NIST is going to support these KOOKS?
Lets see one is talking about pre-planted Thermate, one is talking about PYROCLASTIC Flows and the other is talking about Space based BEAM WEAPONS.
Sorry, it just BOGGLES the mind that you think ANY of these warrant SERIOUS discussion.
So they won't pay the money for the pictures, tough.
Oh and by the way, they HAVE to have you sign the ND as NIST did with the ORIGINAL copyright holders. BUT, you can ALWAYS get permission from the original COPYRIGHT HOLDER and then publish the picture with the Copyright. This is exactly what NIST did throughout the NIST reports.
As to your NIT questions, you HAD your chance to ask them during the public Draft period. You can STILL file a formal REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION with NIST to get questions like this answered.
By the way, I do believe via a FOIA request that you could get the Structures DB. I've considered springing for the $100 CD set because I THINK it comes with it (one of the chapters in Report 2 explains how to query the DB, which is kinda pointless if the DB isn't provided)
Arthur
- access to the 6899 photographs and 6977 segments of video footage held by NIST (and yes, you can apparently submit a FOIA, pay $13,000 and get them, I have emailed Jones about this and he responded that the non-disclosure agreements you have to sign to do so are unacceptable as you cannot share them with anyone else - for example by including them in a paper)
- access to the computer models/datasets used by the NIST. How can anyone evaluate the NIST report without this?
- blueprints of WTC, in particular the core bracing schedule from "Drawing Book 6". Has any independent agent even compared the blueprints to the NIST FEA model to see if it makes sense? This is one of the goals of 911research for example (Jim Hoffman)
I think that regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, making this information freely available should be supported by all. It's slowly trickling in thanks to the efforts of scholars for truth (and justice) (the recent blueprints were released to Steven Jones by someone who worked on the Silverstein insurance trial, without Steven Jones and "truth movement" legwork this would probably have never happened), and I hope it continues. But it's tiring to see posters here alternately claim that everything is already available (lie), or claim that it has been made available to the people "who matter". Science is based on the free availability of information and data.
Wrong. NIST 1-2A, p.2: "The primary structural systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams, and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems."
You forgot the mechanical floors! (Floors 7-8, 41-42, 75-76, and 108-109).
Note: this doesn't say anything about the other floors not having cross-bracing (not "included" in this list? part of the "secondary structural system"?)
Also, NIST 1-2A, p.13: "In addition, some information from Drawing Book 6 (core bracing schedule) and Drawing Book 9 (beams in the hat truss region) was included in the database files as it was utilized in the finite element modeling of the towers."
Why "some", why not all? What was used? What was left out? Let's see the damn core bracing schedule, let's see the FEA modeling files, let's get it in the hands of competent people and let's start analyzing it.
YAWN
You're right, I forgot the bracing on the mech floors. My bad. But there wasn't bracing on the normal floors on the core, which was my point.
No I don't think Steven Jones or Jim Hoffman or Judy Woods are SERIOUS researchers.
Do you REALLY think NIST is going to support these KOOKS?
Lets see one is talking about pre-planted Thermate, one is talking about PYROCLASTIC Flows and the other is talking about Space based BEAM WEAPONS.
Sorry, it just BOGGLES the mind that you think ANY of these warrant SERIOUS discussion.
So they won't pay the money for the pictures, tough.
Oh and by the way, they HAVE to have you sign the ND as NIST did with the ORIGINAL copyright holders. BUT, you can ALWAYS get permission from the original COPYRIGHT HOLDER and then publish the picture with the Copyright. This is exactly what NIST did throughout the NIST reports.
As to your NIT questions, you HAD your chance to ask them during the public Draft period. You can STILL file a formal REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION with NIST to get questions like this answered.
By the way, I do believe via a FOIA request that you could get the Structures DB. I've considered springing for the $100 CD set because I THINK it comes with it (one of the chapters in Report 2 explains how to query the DB, which is kinda pointless if the DB isn't provided)
Arthur
Just for the record; I am a construction worker.
Now, the Nist report dont show the wtc blueprints... Nist report dont show or explain the structure in detail. That is what it is all about: Release the orginal blueprints in every detail immediatly! Period.
Frankly speaking it is like this:
"The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.
...
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower.
...
The drawings contain a wealth of detail about the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members such as the core columns
(Jim Hoffman)
Now, does people really belive that this is all the wtc blueprints ??
Of cource not! I know this very well. It is just a part of the orginal blueprints.
Now, the Nist report dont show the wtc blueprints... Nist report dont show or explain the structure in detail. That is what it is all about: Release the orginal blueprints in every detail immediatly! Period.
Frankly speaking it is like this:
"The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.
...
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower.
...
The drawings contain a wealth of detail about the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members such as the core columns
(Jim Hoffman)
Now, does people really belive that this is all the wtc blueprints ??
Of cource not! I know this very well. It is just a part of the orginal blueprints.
Arthur,
Source? What I posted from the NIST report certainly doesn't establish this.
And again, please provide some "PEER reviewed" papers in "SCIENTIFIC" journals that your groups at "Berkley" & Purdue published. Let's see an example of a high calibre paper in the style that you would like to see from the 911 truth community produced by one of those structural engineers that validates the NIST report.
I did a bit of digging around to see what you were referring to at Berkeley.
I found the case of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and I think his experience is instructive (I certainly hope this isn't the Berkeley group you are referring to)
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
Source? What I posted from the NIST report certainly doesn't establish this.
And again, please provide some "PEER reviewed" papers in "SCIENTIFIC" journals that your groups at "Berkley" & Purdue published. Let's see an example of a high calibre paper in the style that you would like to see from the 911 truth community produced by one of those structural engineers that validates the NIST report.
I did a bit of digging around to see what you were referring to at Berkeley.
I found the case of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and I think his experience is instructive (I certainly hope this isn't the Berkeley group you are referring to)
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
A Berkeley Engineer Searches for the 'Truth' About the Twin Towers
When the World Trade Center's burning south tower crumbled to the ground fiveyears ago, just 56 minutes after terrorists crashed a Boeing 767 passenger jet into its upper floors, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's horror was mixed with professional surprise.
As a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and an expert on steel structures, he thought that the buildings should have stood longer, even after such a catastrophic impact, and that the collapse should not have been so nearly vertical.
"From the day that I stood there and watched it collapse" on television, he says, "I was thinking that this is impossible. That there's something strange here."
Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he knew immediately that he wanted to be a part of the scientific response to the tragedy. He felt that his unique expertise could help in understanding how the two towers collapsed. He was well versed in the effects of terrorist bombings on buildings, having conducted research on blast effects after a car bomber brought down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. And he had long studied how buildings responded to earthquakes and other natural disasters, so he knew that researchers must act fast to get the clues needed to understand what had happened.
The day after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Mr. Astaneh-Asl submitted an emergency grant proposal to the National Science Foundation asking for money to examine the steel at ground zero firsthand. Only days later, the request granted, Mr. Astaneh-Asl flew to New York and spent weeks at a recycling center where the towers' remains were being scrapped. There he inspected and collected samples of joints and other scraps of steel from what were once two of the tallest buildings in the world.
Though his NSF grant soon ended, questions about the collapse remained. Mr. Astaneh-Asl decided to create a computer simulation of the plane attacks, with as much detail as possible, in the hope that the unprecedented tragedy might yield lessons that could be used in the design of future skyscrapers.
He did not expect the discoveries he would make, the political obstacles he would face — or that, five years later, he would be involved in a struggle for skyscraper safety.
<snip>
this is where the article gets relevant to our discussion on blueprint availability:
Now this guy was interviewed in 2001 on npr with Ronald Hamburger, one of the key NIST players ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/ju...cture_9-11.html ), and even he didn't manage to get access to the blueprints until he testified in front of Congress. Some transparency!
QUOTE
But there wasn't bracing on the normal floors on the core, which was my point.
Source? What I posted from the NIST report certainly doesn't establish this.
And again, please provide some "PEER reviewed" papers in "SCIENTIFIC" journals that your groups at "Berkley" & Purdue published. Let's see an example of a high calibre paper in the style that you would like to see from the 911 truth community produced by one of those structural engineers that validates the NIST report.
I did a bit of digging around to see what you were referring to at Berkeley.
I found the case of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and I think his experience is instructive (I certainly hope this isn't the Berkeley group you are referring to)
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But there wasn't bracing on the normal floors on the core, which was my point. |
Source? What I posted from the NIST report certainly doesn't establish this.
And again, please provide some "PEER reviewed" papers in "SCIENTIFIC" journals that your groups at "Berkley" & Purdue published. Let's see an example of a high calibre paper in the style that you would like to see from the 911 truth community produced by one of those structural engineers that validates the NIST report.
I did a bit of digging around to see what you were referring to at Berkeley.
I found the case of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and I think his experience is instructive (I certainly hope this isn't the Berkeley group you are referring to)
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
A Berkeley Engineer Searches for the 'Truth' About the Twin Towers
When the World Trade Center's burning south tower crumbled to the ground fiveyears ago, just 56 minutes after terrorists crashed a Boeing 767 passenger jet into its upper floors, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's horror was mixed with professional surprise.
As a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and an expert on steel structures, he thought that the buildings should have stood longer, even after such a catastrophic impact, and that the collapse should not have been so nearly vertical.
"From the day that I stood there and watched it collapse" on television, he says, "I was thinking that this is impossible. That there's something strange here."
Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he knew immediately that he wanted to be a part of the scientific response to the tragedy. He felt that his unique expertise could help in understanding how the two towers collapsed. He was well versed in the effects of terrorist bombings on buildings, having conducted research on blast effects after a car bomber brought down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. And he had long studied how buildings responded to earthquakes and other natural disasters, so he knew that researchers must act fast to get the clues needed to understand what had happened.
The day after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Mr. Astaneh-Asl submitted an emergency grant proposal to the National Science Foundation asking for money to examine the steel at ground zero firsthand. Only days later, the request granted, Mr. Astaneh-Asl flew to New York and spent weeks at a recycling center where the towers' remains were being scrapped. There he inspected and collected samples of joints and other scraps of steel from what were once two of the tallest buildings in the world.
Though his NSF grant soon ended, questions about the collapse remained. Mr. Astaneh-Asl decided to create a computer simulation of the plane attacks, with as much detail as possible, in the hope that the unprecedented tragedy might yield lessons that could be used in the design of future skyscrapers.
He did not expect the discoveries he would make, the political obstacles he would face — or that, five years later, he would be involved in a struggle for skyscraper safety.
<snip>
this is where the article gets relevant to our discussion on blueprint availability:
QUOTE
His work examining steel near ground zero gave Mr. Astaneh-Asl a few short minutes of fame. He was interviewed on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, CNN, and National Public Radio, as well as by several newspapers, including The Chronicle. At the time, he stressed the positive aspects of the twin towers' performance on the day of the attacks, noting that the length of time the buildings stood allowed most occupants to escape.
Mr. Astaneh-Asl says that from his inspection of the steel, he decided the collapse was not due to faulty welding or poor workmanship. That meant he was still not sure exactly how the collapse happened.
Then he got a call from an analyst from MSC Software Corporation, which makes high-end computer-modeling software used by carmakers and other businesses. Company officials had seen the Berkeley professor quoted in the news media, and offered to donate the company's software for his efforts. He quickly took them up on their offer and began the next phase of his research.
Mr. Astaneh-Asl wanted the computer simulation to be as true to life as possible. That would require the blueprints and construction specifications for the twin towers.
"Basically you build the towers inside your computer with all the dimensions — you represent each element of your structure," he says. "It's really a virtual replica of your physical structure."
But the building plans for the towers turned out to be hard to come by, as the developers kept them sealed from public view. Experts say that most developers keep such documents private, viewing them as proprietary information, but Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he had hoped that, considering the circumstances, the plans would be made available to researchers.
He nearly got access by joining an investigation team led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which brought together some two dozen researchers and engineers in late 2001.
Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings' architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.
(The leader of that investigation, W. Gene Corley, says he believes the wording of the nondisclosure agreement would not have stopped any participant in the investigation from publishing academic papers about the structures. "It essentially said that we would not use information we obtained there to be used in a lawsuit against the owners and designers of the building," says Mr. Corley, who is senior vice president of the CTL Group, in Skokie, Ill.)
After the Berkeley professor had nearly lost hope of obtaining the blueprints, he was invited to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, in March of 2002, at a hearing titled "Learning From 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center."
There, he was asked what "impediments" he had encountered in his research, and he replied that the largest one was his inability to get the design and engineering documents. Soon afterward, he was sent a copy of the plans by an official from FEMA. (He jokes that his wife wishes he had also asked for money to support his research.)
Mr. Astaneh-Asl says that from his inspection of the steel, he decided the collapse was not due to faulty welding or poor workmanship. That meant he was still not sure exactly how the collapse happened.
Then he got a call from an analyst from MSC Software Corporation, which makes high-end computer-modeling software used by carmakers and other businesses. Company officials had seen the Berkeley professor quoted in the news media, and offered to donate the company's software for his efforts. He quickly took them up on their offer and began the next phase of his research.
Mr. Astaneh-Asl wanted the computer simulation to be as true to life as possible. That would require the blueprints and construction specifications for the twin towers.
"Basically you build the towers inside your computer with all the dimensions — you represent each element of your structure," he says. "It's really a virtual replica of your physical structure."
But the building plans for the towers turned out to be hard to come by, as the developers kept them sealed from public view. Experts say that most developers keep such documents private, viewing them as proprietary information, but Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he had hoped that, considering the circumstances, the plans would be made available to researchers.
He nearly got access by joining an investigation team led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which brought together some two dozen researchers and engineers in late 2001.
Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings' architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.
(The leader of that investigation, W. Gene Corley, says he believes the wording of the nondisclosure agreement would not have stopped any participant in the investigation from publishing academic papers about the structures. "It essentially said that we would not use information we obtained there to be used in a lawsuit against the owners and designers of the building," says Mr. Corley, who is senior vice president of the CTL Group, in Skokie, Ill.)
After the Berkeley professor had nearly lost hope of obtaining the blueprints, he was invited to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, in March of 2002, at a hearing titled "Learning From 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center."
There, he was asked what "impediments" he had encountered in his research, and he replied that the largest one was his inability to get the design and engineering documents. Soon afterward, he was sent a copy of the plans by an official from FEMA. (He jokes that his wife wishes he had also asked for money to support his research.)
Now this guy was interviewed in 2001 on npr with Ronald Hamburger, one of the key NIST players ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/ju...cture_9-11.html ), and even he didn't manage to get access to the blueprints until he testified in front of Congress. Some transparency!
I have to confess something guys. I blew up the Twin Towers. I'm really sorry I did it too. It was an accident. I could explain what happend but I'll let you use your imagination.
lozenge124, I didn't say the plans were EASY to get.
But many more people than NIST have seen them, so clearly all you have to show is you have a NEED to see the blueprints and have laid out some reasonable reasons to back that up.
Clearly the Troothers have NOT done so.
As to the Bracing between core columns, take a look at the floor diagrams (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5F Appndx A Floor Plans and it is VERY CLEAR there was NO BRACING on the normal floors.
Arthur
But many more people than NIST have seen them, so clearly all you have to show is you have a NEED to see the blueprints and have laid out some reasonable reasons to back that up.
Clearly the Troothers have NOT done so.
As to the Bracing between core columns, take a look at the floor diagrams (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5F Appndx A Floor Plans and it is VERY CLEAR there was NO BRACING on the normal floors.
Arthur
newton --- About your tiny puff or air below the mechanical floors of WTC 2: How long before collapse initiation did this occur? Along which wall and how close to the nearest corner?
For WTC 1, there was a sizable smoke cloud from floor 77 0r 78 about 10 minutes before collapse initiation. The supposition is the partial collapse of a floor, further destabilizing the south wall...
For WTC 1, there was a sizable smoke cloud from floor 77 0r 78 about 10 minutes before collapse initiation. The supposition is the partial collapse of a floor, further destabilizing the south wall...
QUOTE (Daru+Mar 30 2007, 03:09 PM)
Release the orginal blueprints in every detail immediatly! Period.
Arthur
Arthur
lozenge124
I thought the truther mantra was that noone outside of the gov't was allowed to inspect the steel, that the steel was shipped overseas before anyone could inspect it and that efforts were made to keep those not "in on it" from collecting evidence. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's experience puts the lie to those claims, he had acsess before NIST did.
I thought the truther mantra was that noone outside of the gov't was allowed to inspect the steel, that the steel was shipped overseas before anyone could inspect it and that efforts were made to keep those not "in on it" from collecting evidence. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's experience puts the lie to those claims, he had acsess before NIST did.
He nearly got access by joining an investigation team led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which brought together some two dozen researchers and engineers in late 2001.
Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings' architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.
So he did not get acsess because he VOLUNTARILY resigned rather than comply with the procedures insuring that FEMA and NIST researchers are not compelled to testify in lawsuits. This is to protect the integrity of the investigations and insures the noninterferrence of lawyers seeking money with the scientists seeking explanations. Nondisclosure clauses are normal for these types of investigations and are a matter of law in the case of the FAA, FEMA and NIST.
Bottom line...no amount of acsess to the original plans will change the fact that NISTs investigation has not been challenged, it still stands and their investigators had full acsess to all the materials in question. Nothing anyone is likely to find will change that fact.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The day after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Mr. Astaneh-Asl submitted an emergency grant proposal to the National Science Foundation asking for money to examine the steel at ground zero firsthand. Only days later, the request granted, Mr. Astaneh-Asl flew to New York and spent weeks at a recycling center where the towers' remains were being scrapped. There he inspected and collected samples of joints and other scraps of steel from what were once two of the tallest buildings in the world.
I thought the truther mantra was that noone outside of the gov't was allowed to inspect the steel, that the steel was shipped overseas before anyone could inspect it and that efforts were made to keep those not "in on it" from collecting evidence. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's experience puts the lie to those claims, he had acsess before NIST did.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The day after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Mr. Astaneh-Asl submitted an emergency grant proposal to the National Science Foundation asking for money to examine the steel at ground zero firsthand. Only days later, the request granted, Mr. Astaneh-Asl flew to New York and spent weeks at a recycling center where the towers' remains were being scrapped. There he inspected and collected samples of joints and other scraps of steel from what were once two of the tallest buildings in the world. |
I thought the truther mantra was that noone outside of the gov't was allowed to inspect the steel, that the steel was shipped overseas before anyone could inspect it and that efforts were made to keep those not "in on it" from collecting evidence. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's experience puts the lie to those claims, he had acsess before NIST did.
He nearly got access by joining an investigation team led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which brought together some two dozen researchers and engineers in late 2001.
Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings' architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.
So he did not get acsess because he VOLUNTARILY resigned rather than comply with the procedures insuring that FEMA and NIST researchers are not compelled to testify in lawsuits. This is to protect the integrity of the investigations and insures the noninterferrence of lawyers seeking money with the scientists seeking explanations. Nondisclosure clauses are normal for these types of investigations and are a matter of law in the case of the FAA, FEMA and NIST.
Bottom line...no amount of acsess to the original plans will change the fact that NISTs investigation has not been challenged, it still stands and their investigators had full acsess to all the materials in question. Nothing anyone is likely to find will change that fact.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 30 2007, 09:41 PM)
lozenge124, I didn't say the plans were EASY to get.
But many more people than NIST have seen them, so clearly all you have to show is you have a NEED to see the blueprints and have laid out some reasonable reasons to back that up.
Clearly the Troothers have NOT done so.
As to the Bracing between core columns, take a look at the floor diagrams (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5F Appndx A Floor Plans and it is VERY CLEAR there was NO BRACING on the normal floors.
Arthur
Again, who outside of NIST has seen them? And where are the papers that independently evaluate the NIST report based on this data?
I didn't know there was a committee that decided what scientific data to share with whom. I didn't know you had to show a NEED to see data before being allowed to look at it. As far as I'm concerned science is based on the reproducibility of results, if you publish something claiming some scientific theory, your results are worthless if you don't share the underlying data.
No comments on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl? Here's a guy who decided not to play ball with the non-disclosure agreement on WTC blueprints, and goes his own way, sets up his own computer model, and though he doesn't agree with the demolition theory, he certainly doesn't come to the same conclusions as the NIST either.
As for the bracing, is that really the best you can do? Those are floor plans showing room locations, the core bracing schedule is what is needed here.
Let's get the data out in the open, there's nothing controversial about that. I can't believe people are trying to argue against this.
But many more people than NIST have seen them, so clearly all you have to show is you have a NEED to see the blueprints and have laid out some reasonable reasons to back that up.
Clearly the Troothers have NOT done so.
As to the Bracing between core columns, take a look at the floor diagrams (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5F Appndx A Floor Plans and it is VERY CLEAR there was NO BRACING on the normal floors.
Arthur
Again, who outside of NIST has seen them? And where are the papers that independently evaluate the NIST report based on this data?
I didn't know there was a committee that decided what scientific data to share with whom. I didn't know you had to show a NEED to see data before being allowed to look at it. As far as I'm concerned science is based on the reproducibility of results, if you publish something claiming some scientific theory, your results are worthless if you don't share the underlying data.
No comments on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl? Here's a guy who decided not to play ball with the non-disclosure agreement on WTC blueprints, and goes his own way, sets up his own computer model, and though he doesn't agree with the demolition theory, he certainly doesn't come to the same conclusions as the NIST either.
As for the bracing, is that really the best you can do? Those are floor plans showing room locations, the core bracing schedule is what is needed here.
Let's get the data out in the open, there's nothing controversial about that. I can't believe people are trying to argue against this.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 30 2007, 05:48 PM)
Again, who outside of NIST has seen them? And where are the papers that independently evaluate the NIST report based on this data?
I didn't know there was a committee that decided what scientific data to share with whom. I didn't know you had to show a NEED to see data before being allowed to look at it. As far as I'm concerned science is based on the reproducibility of results, if you publish something claiming some scientific theory, your results are worthless if you don't share the underlying data.
No comments on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl? Here's a guy who decided not to play ball with the non-disclosure agreement on WTC blueprints, and goes his own way, sets up his own computer model, and though he doesn't agree with the demolition theory, he certainly doesn't come to the same conclusions as the NIST either.
As for the bracing, is that really the best you can do? Those are floor plans showing room locations, the core bracing schedule is what is needed here.
Let's get the data out in the open, there's nothing controversial about that. I can't believe people are trying to argue against this.
Well lets see, who's seen them besides those at NIST?
The architects/engineers at LERA.
The Engineers at the PANYNJ
The MANY firms that helped to BUILD the towers
The people at FEMA
That enough for you?
None of these people are claiming that NIST fudged their study.
The point is, YES apparently you do have to show a NEED to see them.
Sorry, the plans are the PROPERTY of the PANYNJ.
Too bad they don't buy into your PARANOIA.
Not many do.
Which is why you got NO SUPPORT on your QUEST for the plans.
So its not like anyone is ARGUING AGAINST you seeing the plans.
Personally I could care less.
Because its like the Column Bracing. Yeah, the floor plans are ALL I have to use. They CLEARLY show there were no braces running between the columns. If you can't see that from the floor plans, then the Blueprints would not help.
Arthur
I didn't know there was a committee that decided what scientific data to share with whom. I didn't know you had to show a NEED to see data before being allowed to look at it. As far as I'm concerned science is based on the reproducibility of results, if you publish something claiming some scientific theory, your results are worthless if you don't share the underlying data.
No comments on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl? Here's a guy who decided not to play ball with the non-disclosure agreement on WTC blueprints, and goes his own way, sets up his own computer model, and though he doesn't agree with the demolition theory, he certainly doesn't come to the same conclusions as the NIST either.
As for the bracing, is that really the best you can do? Those are floor plans showing room locations, the core bracing schedule is what is needed here.
Let's get the data out in the open, there's nothing controversial about that. I can't believe people are trying to argue against this.
Well lets see, who's seen them besides those at NIST?
The architects/engineers at LERA.
The Engineers at the PANYNJ
The MANY firms that helped to BUILD the towers
The people at FEMA
That enough for you?
None of these people are claiming that NIST fudged their study.
The point is, YES apparently you do have to show a NEED to see them.
Sorry, the plans are the PROPERTY of the PANYNJ.
Too bad they don't buy into your PARANOIA.
Not many do.
Which is why you got NO SUPPORT on your QUEST for the plans.
So its not like anyone is ARGUING AGAINST you seeing the plans.
Personally I could care less.
Because its like the Column Bracing. Yeah, the floor plans are ALL I have to use. They CLEARLY show there were no braces running between the columns. If you can't see that from the floor plans, then the Blueprints would not help.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 30 2007, 11:25 PM)
Well lets see, who's seen them besides those at NIST?
The architects/engineers at LERA.
The Engineers at the PANYNJ
The MANY firms that helped to BUILD the towers
The people at FEMA
That enough for you?
None of these people are claiming that NIST fudged their study.
The point is, YES apparently you do have to show a NEED to see them.
Sorry, the plans are the PROPERTY of the PANYNJ.
Too bad they don't buy into your PARANOIA.
Not many do.
Which is why you got NO SUPPORT on your QUEST for the plans.
So its not like anyone is ARGUING AGAINST you seeing the plans.
Personally I could care less.
Because its like the Column Bracing. Yeah, the floor plans are ALL I have to use. They CLEARLY show there were no braces running between the columns. If you can't see that from the floor plans, then the Blueprints would not help.
Arthur
I take it you can't find a single independent paper that corroborates the NIST report. So you claim that because noone objects to it (not surprising seeing that the data to do so is unavailable), it must be true. Rather weak.
Incidentally the Port Authority is a government organization, funded by tax payer money. They are civil servants, last time I checked the government was accountable to the people, not the other way round.
Still no comment about Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl?
Anyway, rather shoddy arguments overall Mr.adoucette. I don't think I'll pay too much attention to your posts in the future...
The architects/engineers at LERA.
The Engineers at the PANYNJ
The MANY firms that helped to BUILD the towers
The people at FEMA
That enough for you?
None of these people are claiming that NIST fudged their study.
The point is, YES apparently you do have to show a NEED to see them.
Sorry, the plans are the PROPERTY of the PANYNJ.
Too bad they don't buy into your PARANOIA.
Not many do.
Which is why you got NO SUPPORT on your QUEST for the plans.
So its not like anyone is ARGUING AGAINST you seeing the plans.
Personally I could care less.
Because its like the Column Bracing. Yeah, the floor plans are ALL I have to use. They CLEARLY show there were no braces running between the columns. If you can't see that from the floor plans, then the Blueprints would not help.
Arthur
I take it you can't find a single independent paper that corroborates the NIST report. So you claim that because noone objects to it (not surprising seeing that the data to do so is unavailable), it must be true. Rather weak.
Incidentally the Port Authority is a government organization, funded by tax payer money. They are civil servants, last time I checked the government was accountable to the people, not the other way round.
Still no comment about Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl?
Anyway, rather shoddy arguments overall Mr.adoucette. I don't think I'll pay too much attention to your posts in the future...
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 30 2007, 11:47 PM)
(1) I take it you can't find a single independent paper that corroborates the NIST report. ...
(2) ... the Port Authority is a government organization, ...
(1) What do you want? The Purdue group certainly must have written a report. The early MIT study is available. NIST references that one.
(2) The Port Authority is a result of a compact between two states. This puts it in an unusual legal position. For example, they are not legally obligated to follow the building codes of either state...
(2) ... the Port Authority is a government organization, ...
(1) What do you want? The Purdue group certainly must have written a report. The early MIT study is available. NIST references that one.
(2) The Port Authority is a result of a compact between two states. This puts it in an unusual legal position. For example, they are not legally obligated to follow the building codes of either state...
lozenge124
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl,for one. And he also got to examine the steel within days of 9/11(for WEEKS no less). It doesn't do the CTer "theories" any good if you keep citeing sources which contradicts those "theories". Not that the good doctor would want you using his story for your nefarious ends.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Again, who outside of NIST has seen them?
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl,for one. And he also got to examine the steel within days of 9/11(for WEEKS no less). It doesn't do the CTer "theories" any good if you keep citeing sources which contradicts those "theories". Not that the good doctor would want you using his story for your nefarious ends.
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 30 2007, 06:47 PM)
I take it you can't find a single independent paper that corroborates the NIST report. So you claim that because noone objects to it (not surprising seeing that the data to do so is unavailable), it must be true. Rather weak.
Incidentally the Port Authority is a government organization, funded by tax payer money. They are civil servants, last time I checked the government was accountable to the people, not the other way round.
Still no comment about Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl?
Anyway, rather shoddy arguments overall Mr.adoucette. I don't think I'll pay too much attention to your posts in the future...
None of the papers were specifically written to corroborate the NIST report. Keep in mind that the NIST report was SO EXTENSIVE that I can't imagine anyone having the RESOURCES it would take to seriously challenge it. So no, I don't expect anybody taking the time to write a WAY TO GO, NIST paper.
However, both the Purdue study and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl come to essentially the same conclusions about various aspects of the NIST report and more importantly, they don't contradict ANY of it.
From Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's paper:
From his conclusions section.
Based on the field investigation and study of drawings and other design related documents, it is the opinion of the author that the highly redundant exterior tube of the World Trade Center with many closely spaced columns was able to tolerate the loss of many columns and support the gravity while almost all occupants who could use a stairway escaped to safety. The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project summarized here was sponsored by the National Science Foundation of the United States of America. Partial support was also provided to the author by the American Institute of Steel Construction and the University of California at Berkeley. The generous donation of the powerful analysis program Patran/Dytran by the MSC Corporation to the University of California, Berkeley is sincerely appreciates.
The Purdue study which was covered either earlier in this thread or the one just before this, (knock yourself out) used the same FEA program and did a recreation of the planes impact.
They were a little less conservative than NIST (i.e. didn't account for the contents of the building) and thus showed GREATER Core Column damage than NIST.
Incidentally the Port Authority is a government organization, funded by tax payer money. They are civil servants, last time I checked the government was accountable to the people, not the other way round.
Still no comment about Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl?
Anyway, rather shoddy arguments overall Mr.adoucette. I don't think I'll pay too much attention to your posts in the future...
None of the papers were specifically written to corroborate the NIST report. Keep in mind that the NIST report was SO EXTENSIVE that I can't imagine anyone having the RESOURCES it would take to seriously challenge it. So no, I don't expect anybody taking the time to write a WAY TO GO, NIST paper.
However, both the Purdue study and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl come to essentially the same conclusions about various aspects of the NIST report and more importantly, they don't contradict ANY of it.
From Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's paper:
From his conclusions section.
Based on the field investigation and study of drawings and other design related documents, it is the opinion of the author that the highly redundant exterior tube of the World Trade Center with many closely spaced columns was able to tolerate the loss of many columns and support the gravity while almost all occupants who could use a stairway escaped to safety. The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project summarized here was sponsored by the National Science Foundation of the United States of America. Partial support was also provided to the author by the American Institute of Steel Construction and the University of California at Berkeley. The generous donation of the powerful analysis program Patran/Dytran by the MSC Corporation to the University of California, Berkeley is sincerely appreciates.
The Purdue study which was covered either earlier in this thread or the one just before this, (knock yourself out) used the same FEA program and did a recreation of the planes impact.
They were a little less conservative than NIST (i.e. didn't account for the contents of the building) and thus showed GREATER Core Column damage than NIST.
QUOTE (Who Cares?+)
the Port Authority is a government organization, funded by tax payer money. They are civil servants, last time I checked the government was accountable to the people, not the other way round.
Yeah, well they are a QUASI goverment organization created by TWO STATES, NY and NJ and I guess to that extent they are accountable to the people of THOSE states. Take up your beef with them. Personnally I think they were being accountable to the people by having an INDEPENDENT organization like NIST do the study.
Oh, and I could CARE LESS if you never read another of my posts.
This thread and my replies aren't for dimwitted CT'ers anyway. They have clearly shown that they aren't interested in the truth. Its for those who ARE interested in learning and that read this thread to gain understanding, that I post for.
Arthur
Yeah, well they are a QUASI goverment organization created by TWO STATES, NY and NJ and I guess to that extent they are accountable to the people of THOSE states. Take up your beef with them. Personnally I think they were being accountable to the people by having an INDEPENDENT organization like NIST do the study.
Oh, and I could CARE LESS if you never read another of my posts.
This thread and my replies aren't for dimwitted CT'ers anyway. They have clearly shown that they aren't interested in the truth. Its for those who ARE interested in learning and that read this thread to gain understanding, that I post for.
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.