QUOTE
wcelliott and adoucette your trusses theory is debunked hard! lol
You're clearly living in a dream world of your own design where reality isn't welcome.
You're clearly living in a dream world of your own design where reality isn't welcome.
Professor Eagar explains his zipper theory:
"Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds."
Eager suggests the towers were designed to survive only a trashcan fire:
"If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect."
NOVA/Eagar Use Deceptive Techniques
Images and movies misrepresent the towers as flimsy structures just waiting to pancake:
animation:
Omits cross-trusses, which would spoil zipper effect.
Implies floors rested on trusses. In fact, trusses were bolted to steel floor pans every few inches.
structural schematic:
Core depicted as horizontal slabs instead of vertical columns.
Spandrell plates linking perimeter columns are omitted.
plane approaching:
Plane is size of 747, over twice size of 767
Horizontal ribs replace vertical columns.
The Truss Failure Theory According to FEMA
FEMA's BPAT gave the truss failure theory the official stamp of legitimacy in their report.
"As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed."
Tall freestanding columns?
We see only short freefalling column fragments.
They say the perimeter and core columns would self-destruct if the floor diaphragms collapsed.
The columns were not freestanding:
The perimeter columns were grids with horizontal spandrel plates linking the columns.
The core structures were lattices, densely cross-braced.
Note legalistic CYA language possibly central core columns:
Engineers knew floor failures would not destroy core structures.
Wishing Away the Core Structures
They substitute service core for core structure to help the reader think the buildings were flimsy:
"A rectangular service core with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16 escalators."
"The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south."
Deceptive illustrations imply that the towers had no core columns.
FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."
FEMA's Report Misrepresents the Tower's Construction
FEMA's report pretends the towers would instantly self-destruct if the floors fell away.
Key to this deception is hiding the strength of the core structures.
Core column cross-sections are shown about 1/3rd their actual dimensions.
(if they are shown at all).
Cross-bracing core beams are not shown.
Report lacks description of core structures.
Report's description of the towers fails to account for about 30 percent of the steel thought to have been used in their construction.
Report has only one photo giving size comparison of core column.
It fraudulently presents a much smaller column as a Twin Tower core column
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
Abundantly cross-braced
Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
Anchored directly to bedrock
Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The towers were designed to withstand 140 MPH winds.
In such cases the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads loads between perimeter walls and core. Otherwise, structural function of the floors was not in play.
The Truss Failure Theory is a Diversion
It avoids the glaring deficiencies of the column failure theory, but likewise doesn't begin to explain total collapse.
Prerequisites didn't exist.
Neither tower's fires covered even one entire floor.
Eager's zipper scenario is impossible given the cross-trussing.
Domino-effect floor failures were not possible.
The fall of a floor would easily be absorbed by the floor below.
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense.
Supposed end result doesn't follow.
A domino effect collapse of the floor diaphragms would have left the perimeter wall and core standing -- The floors would have slid down the cores like records on a spindle.
NIST's Hybrid Theory
NIST abandoned the truss-failure theory in favor of a modified version of the column-failure theory.
Fires caused trusses to sag
Trusses pulled perimeter walls inward
Hat trusses transferred to perimeter "column instability" to core columns
Global collapse ensued
Official Explanations Cannot Explain Total Collapses of Any Type
These explanations cannot begin to explain any kind of total collapse.
(If damage due to impacts and fires were sufficient to cause some kind of collapse, it would have caused the tops to topple like trees, leaving the structures below the impact zones standing.)
The newly discovered ability of buildings to crush themselves is given the fancy name:
progressive total collapse.
A web search reveals most references to progressive collapse involve one or more of four cases:
The WTC North Tower
The WTC South Tower
WTC Building 7
The Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (bombed in 1995).
Why does this phenomenon only show up in terrorist incidents?
The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire... However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)
“core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005)
The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:
The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)
How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted”(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.
Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct.
An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by a physicist.
"Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds."
Eager suggests the towers were designed to survive only a trashcan fire:
"If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect."
NOVA/Eagar Use Deceptive Techniques
Images and movies misrepresent the towers as flimsy structures just waiting to pancake:
animation:
Omits cross-trusses, which would spoil zipper effect.
Implies floors rested on trusses. In fact, trusses were bolted to steel floor pans every few inches.
structural schematic:
Core depicted as horizontal slabs instead of vertical columns.
Spandrell plates linking perimeter columns are omitted.
plane approaching:
Plane is size of 747, over twice size of 767
Horizontal ribs replace vertical columns.
The Truss Failure Theory According to FEMA
FEMA's BPAT gave the truss failure theory the official stamp of legitimacy in their report.
"As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed."
Tall freestanding columns?
We see only short freefalling column fragments.
They say the perimeter and core columns would self-destruct if the floor diaphragms collapsed.
The columns were not freestanding:
The perimeter columns were grids with horizontal spandrel plates linking the columns.
The core structures were lattices, densely cross-braced.
Note legalistic CYA language possibly central core columns:
Engineers knew floor failures would not destroy core structures.
Wishing Away the Core Structures
They substitute service core for core structure to help the reader think the buildings were flimsy:
"A rectangular service core with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16 escalators."
"The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south."
Deceptive illustrations imply that the towers had no core columns.
FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."
FEMA's Report Misrepresents the Tower's Construction
FEMA's report pretends the towers would instantly self-destruct if the floors fell away.
Key to this deception is hiding the strength of the core structures.
Core column cross-sections are shown about 1/3rd their actual dimensions.
(if they are shown at all).
Cross-bracing core beams are not shown.
Report lacks description of core structures.
Report's description of the towers fails to account for about 30 percent of the steel thought to have been used in their construction.
Report has only one photo giving size comparison of core column.
It fraudulently presents a much smaller column as a Twin Tower core column
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
Abundantly cross-braced
Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
Anchored directly to bedrock
Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The towers were designed to withstand 140 MPH winds.
In such cases the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads loads between perimeter walls and core. Otherwise, structural function of the floors was not in play.
The Truss Failure Theory is a Diversion
It avoids the glaring deficiencies of the column failure theory, but likewise doesn't begin to explain total collapse.
Prerequisites didn't exist.
Neither tower's fires covered even one entire floor.
Eager's zipper scenario is impossible given the cross-trussing.
Domino-effect floor failures were not possible.
The fall of a floor would easily be absorbed by the floor below.
Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense.
Supposed end result doesn't follow.
A domino effect collapse of the floor diaphragms would have left the perimeter wall and core standing -- The floors would have slid down the cores like records on a spindle.
NIST's Hybrid Theory
NIST abandoned the truss-failure theory in favor of a modified version of the column-failure theory.
Fires caused trusses to sag
Trusses pulled perimeter walls inward
Hat trusses transferred to perimeter "column instability" to core columns
Global collapse ensued
Official Explanations Cannot Explain Total Collapses of Any Type
These explanations cannot begin to explain any kind of total collapse.
(If damage due to impacts and fires were sufficient to cause some kind of collapse, it would have caused the tops to topple like trees, leaving the structures below the impact zones standing.)
The newly discovered ability of buildings to crush themselves is given the fancy name:
progressive total collapse.
A web search reveals most references to progressive collapse involve one or more of four cases:
The WTC North Tower
The WTC South Tower
WTC Building 7
The Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (bombed in 1995).
Why does this phenomenon only show up in terrorist incidents?
The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire... However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)
“core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005)
The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:
The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)
How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted”(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.
Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct.
An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by a physicist.
QUOTE
On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct.
And you, of all people, are invoking Occam's Razor?
You think it's more likely that someone smuggled tons of explosives (and thermate, which isn't an explosive) into the WTC towers *without anyone noticing* and induced three CDs right in front of everyone, including live TV filmcrews, AND having 16 terrorists hijack four planes for kamikaze missions, is actually *simpler* than Osama bin Laden sending 16 terrorists to hijack four planes for kamikaze missions, period.
OK, so if it wasn't Osama bin Laden, who planned this stunt, David Copperfield?
I've already shown you the physics that explains the collapse, I won't bother repeating it. You're clearly too delusional to know the truth when you see it.
wcelliott. Read my post i posted before this one. Your BS is debunked 
Try reading history and find out who the NWO are
QUOTE
OK, so if it wasn't Osama bin Laden, who planned this stunt, David Copperfield?
Try reading history and find out who the NWO are
Gordon’s response : 
DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007*
When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.
Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.
But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.
Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?
Perhaps he should be congratulated for moving the debate away from what to some is an incomprehensible sea of mathematical formulae and back into the physical world where anyone can see and understand the evidence. His motive in doing so, protection of his theory, is also understandable.
But the fundamental problem with his theory remains that it is a physical impossibility. He assumes that all of the energy of the upper section will be somehow transferred to act only on the uppermost storey of the lower section. He ignores the fact that in order for the energy to even reach that storey, it must be transferred through every column in the storeys of the upper section. For his theory that the energy would concentrate in and overcome the columns sequentially down the tower to be correct, the columns of the upper section would have to transfer loads sufficient to cause failure to the stronger, less damaged and less thermally affected columns of the lower section, without themselves absorbing any energy whatsoever.
With increasing awareness of the shortcomings of his theory, Dr. Bazant, has selected a single piece of physical evidence and now holds it up to fend off the criticism. NIST could not have asked for a more staunch defender. But the physical world is a dangerous place for a flawed theory.
A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument.
Dr. Bazant's theory tells us that the energy would concentrate in and crush the volume below the aircraft impact level.
These photographs clearly show that the first volume to be crushed was a volume of the upper section. Dr. Bazant has supplied us with a physical measure of the movement of the roof of the tower. He has asked us to believe that this acceleration of the roof line was the same as the lower end of the upper section, because the upper section remained whole and rigid. This is easily revealed to not be the case. Far from being a measure of the progress of the collapse front down the tower, it is actually a measure of the progress of the destruction of the upper section. The foundation of the entire argument can be undermined simply by showing one undeniable sequence of events.
The first volume to be crushed was as shown in the photographs, in complete contradiction to the theory of Dr. Bazant. Is it now becoming clearer why NIST wouldn't touch this with a bargepole?
The article continues at :
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
You have to wonder why DR. BAZANT would add his name to a paper that is so easy to disprove (for Gordon at least)?
QUOTE
DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007*
When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.
Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.
But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.
Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?
Perhaps he should be congratulated for moving the debate away from what to some is an incomprehensible sea of mathematical formulae and back into the physical world where anyone can see and understand the evidence. His motive in doing so, protection of his theory, is also understandable.
But the fundamental problem with his theory remains that it is a physical impossibility. He assumes that all of the energy of the upper section will be somehow transferred to act only on the uppermost storey of the lower section. He ignores the fact that in order for the energy to even reach that storey, it must be transferred through every column in the storeys of the upper section. For his theory that the energy would concentrate in and overcome the columns sequentially down the tower to be correct, the columns of the upper section would have to transfer loads sufficient to cause failure to the stronger, less damaged and less thermally affected columns of the lower section, without themselves absorbing any energy whatsoever.
With increasing awareness of the shortcomings of his theory, Dr. Bazant, has selected a single piece of physical evidence and now holds it up to fend off the criticism. NIST could not have asked for a more staunch defender. But the physical world is a dangerous place for a flawed theory.
A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument.
Dr. Bazant's theory tells us that the energy would concentrate in and crush the volume below the aircraft impact level.
These photographs clearly show that the first volume to be crushed was a volume of the upper section. Dr. Bazant has supplied us with a physical measure of the movement of the roof of the tower. He has asked us to believe that this acceleration of the roof line was the same as the lower end of the upper section, because the upper section remained whole and rigid. This is easily revealed to not be the case. Far from being a measure of the progress of the collapse front down the tower, it is actually a measure of the progress of the destruction of the upper section. The foundation of the entire argument can be undermined simply by showing one undeniable sequence of events.
The first volume to be crushed was as shown in the photographs, in complete contradiction to the theory of Dr. Bazant. Is it now becoming clearer why NIST wouldn't touch this with a bargepole?
The article continues at :
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
You have to wonder why DR. BAZANT would add his name to a paper that is so easy to disprove (for Gordon at least)?
reasonlesswhine
Even if Bazant et al are not one hundred% accurate on the sequence(I think they have ignored "bageling" and gotten commutation sizes skewed) Their math is not ignorable and predicts the behavior(mostly) of the towers collapses. Ross's disagreement is also a quibble, not a falsifying concept. Even if Ross were entirely correct that more crumple up occured, it would not change what happened and what set it off. There were still no explosives, no thermite/mate, no nukes(it disturbs me that some are so stupid that this has to be said), no ray guns(ditto)...just some Saudi good-ol-boys who thought a suicide bomb would be appropriate, and being a Saudi "Prince" Osama thought to use Aircraft instead of cars. 125 ton incendiary cruise missiles.
Malmoesoldier
Even if Bazant et al are not one hundred% accurate on the sequence(I think they have ignored "bageling" and gotten commutation sizes skewed) Their math is not ignorable and predicts the behavior(mostly) of the towers collapses. Ross's disagreement is also a quibble, not a falsifying concept. Even if Ross were entirely correct that more crumple up occured, it would not change what happened and what set it off. There were still no explosives, no thermite/mate, no nukes(it disturbs me that some are so stupid that this has to be said), no ray guns(ditto)...just some Saudi good-ol-boys who thought a suicide bomb would be appropriate, and being a Saudi "Prince" Osama thought to use Aircraft instead of cars. 125 ton incendiary cruise missiles.
Malmoesoldier
The core structures were lattices, densely cross-braced.
That is simply a bald faced lie. The rest of your post is spam and lies as well. If all you can do is post reams of lies and spam from some of the worst of the CTer sites you are useless to any adult conversation.
The only bracing in the core were the floors OF THE CORE, otherwise they were free standing. The only concrete in the cores was in the floors of the core, the free standing core beams were wrapped in Gypsum board. Even elevator shafts had only gypsum board between them. These are the facts.
I know you have a hard time comprehending, so I'll type real slow...
Plane hit building, building fall down, go boom!
It really is that simple!!!
Grumpy
You have to wonder why DR. BAZANT would add his name to a paper that is so easy to disprove (for Gordon at least)?
Ross disproves nothing in that paper. It's simply a personal attack on Bazant. Very unprofessional. In typical CT fashion he rants on about inane things without offering any explanation of his own. Hardly the effort of a man of science.
The only thing I found comforting about this "analysis" was the fact that he made no attempt at physics this time.
QUOTE
A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument.
Even if Bazant et al are not one hundred% accurate on the sequence(I think they have ignored "bageling" and gotten commutation sizes skewed) Their math is not ignorable and predicts the behavior(mostly) of the towers collapses. Ross's disagreement is also a quibble, not a falsifying concept. Even if Ross were entirely correct that more crumple up occured, it would not change what happened and what set it off. There were still no explosives, no thermite/mate, no nukes(it disturbs me that some are so stupid that this has to be said), no ray guns(ditto)...just some Saudi good-ol-boys who thought a suicide bomb would be appropriate, and being a Saudi "Prince" Osama thought to use Aircraft instead of cars. 125 ton incendiary cruise missiles.
Malmoesoldier
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument. |
Even if Bazant et al are not one hundred% accurate on the sequence(I think they have ignored "bageling" and gotten commutation sizes skewed) Their math is not ignorable and predicts the behavior(mostly) of the towers collapses. Ross's disagreement is also a quibble, not a falsifying concept. Even if Ross were entirely correct that more crumple up occured, it would not change what happened and what set it off. There were still no explosives, no thermite/mate, no nukes(it disturbs me that some are so stupid that this has to be said), no ray guns(ditto)...just some Saudi good-ol-boys who thought a suicide bomb would be appropriate, and being a Saudi "Prince" Osama thought to use Aircraft instead of cars. 125 ton incendiary cruise missiles.
Malmoesoldier
The core structures were lattices, densely cross-braced.
That is simply a bald faced lie. The rest of your post is spam and lies as well. If all you can do is post reams of lies and spam from some of the worst of the CTer sites you are useless to any adult conversation.
The only bracing in the core were the floors OF THE CORE, otherwise they were free standing. The only concrete in the cores was in the floors of the core, the free standing core beams were wrapped in Gypsum board. Even elevator shafts had only gypsum board between them. These are the facts.
I know you have a hard time comprehending, so I'll type real slow...
Plane hit building, building fall down, go boom!
It really is that simple!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 5 2007, 11:55 AM)
You have to wonder why DR. BAZANT would add his name to a paper that is so easy to disprove (for Gordon at least)?
Ross disproves nothing in that paper. It's simply a personal attack on Bazant. Very unprofessional. In typical CT fashion he rants on about inane things without offering any explanation of his own. Hardly the effort of a man of science.
The only thing I found comforting about this "analysis" was the fact that he made no attempt at physics this time.
As typical Moe resorts to quote mining.
In this case Lane and Lamont.
The quote he uses multiple times is from an ARUP document that was based upon a talk given at the NCE conference held at the Cavendish Conference Centre,
London 12 April 2005.
BEFORE the Final NIST report was released.
At the specific request of the NCE we will therefore comment on NIST’s probable collapse theory issued 5 April 2005.
We do not underestimate the enormous and very difficult task NIST are undertaking. Arup as well as many other interested parties are following NIST’s progress with interest. Sometimes however we may disagree with NIST and we therefore currently plan to comment on the draft final report due in June as part of the public consultation process before the final issue in September.
So what did they ACTUALLY SAY?
Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame.
Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding
insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.
The goal is to develop better solutions for fire, without total reliance on passive fire protection, or on single element behaviour. That way we can take advantage of intrinsic design strengths, and attempt to design out any intrinsic design
weakness, in the future. This is not an easy goal, and we consider the impetus from
NIST’s work to be a major stepping stone along the road to the profession achieving this.
Do they ACTUALLY disagree (fundamentally) with NIST?
They had this main issue:
Our main concern with this conclusion is that thermal expansion can swamp all other behaviours and this is not discussed in the NIST report yet. We believe it should be included in a thermo-mechanical analysis to predict the response of any structure to fire, particularly when determining a probable collapse mechanism.
==> NOTE NIST added their analysis of thermal expansion to the final report. As it turns out, thermal expansion did NOT swamp all other behaviours.
Does ARUP believe it was Thermate or CD?
Nope: Protected structures - especially slender elements like truss diagonals - heat and deform in a fire. Fire protection is not a shield, it only delays heating. So in a global structural system it is our view that fire proofing to structural steelwork does not imply collapse cannot occur.
They show a SLIGHTLY different view of how a collapse could have been started relying on BOTH thermal expansion and bowing in of the columns.
See figure page 8 found in report at http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6267
http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf
From the paper:
It is our view that the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically important document for tall building design worldwide.
Now to the ACTUAL quote that is used by Moe.
You KNOW how you can tell when a Troofer is using a quote out of context.
Simple they use a short quote and usually just a PART of a sentence.
Here is the PARAGRAPH that line is from:
You KNOW how you can tell when a Troofer is using a quote out of context.
Simple they use a short quote and usually just a PART of a sentence.
Here is the PARAGRAPH that line is from:
Crude initial calculations indicate that the elastic downward deflection at half the modulus (say at approx. 500C) will be roughly 38mm.
Assuming plastic strains, a maximum yielding of approximately 190mm is possible.
If the downward displacement is 300mm as assumed, the rotation at the perimeter connection would be 300mm vertical over an 18000mm span - extremely small.
The floor elongation must be less than 2.5mm to generate tensile pulling forces on the exterior columns as a result of the column shortening in the core.
Thermal expansion of the floor truss would be 65mm at 300°C over a length of 18000mm.
Therefore the 2.5mm is swamped by thermal expansion and the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor simply as a result of column shortening.
And what do you know, NIST AGREES with the ENTIRE sentence: the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor SIMPLY AS A RESULT OF COLUMN SHORTENING.
Typical, who but someone who wants to INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE would leave the last part of that sentence off?
Arthur
It's called "gravity".
The top part falls and accelerates as it falls.
If nothing were in its way, it'd hit the ground in less than 10 seconds.
Something is in its way, though, the lower part of the building.
So how much resistance to the upper block's descent does the lower building put up? It puts up about the same amount of resistance with each floor (equal to the structural strength of that floor).
I'm with you until you get to this point.
Are you suggesting that each floor of the WTC was supported only by the floor immediately below it? Because it seems to me that the foundation of a building has got to support the whole structure; and the first floor has got to support all the floors above it; and the first two floors have got to support all the floors above them; etc. How easy it would be to construct buildings if you needn't concern yourself about the integrity of the building more than one floor below! Unless of course you accidentally drop a needle on top of the building ... and then watch out!
You're correct, the more accurate way of explaining the concept would require including the differential strength of each floor as a function of the number of floors above it, but when you're talking about a building with 100+ floors, and you're talking about the floors in the middle of the building (more or less) the differential structural strength is a matter of a few percent per floor (in the ideal case), and since I'm showing the collision mechanism of why each floor fails far short of stopping the falling floors above, a few percent is easier to leave out than its contribution is worth explaining.
It's still a matter that each floor's maximum strength gets exceeded by a large factor in the collision with the falling floors from above. 30 floors falling ten feet, trying to stop them in two feet, means you have to provide a net force equal to 6x the weight of the 30 floors or the upper falling mass won't stop.
CDiots won't understand the significance of that factor-of-six dynamic load, Malmo has already stated that he thought the WTC was designed to accommodate dynamic loads of 2000% (meaning it had 20x the steel in it necessary to hold it up), but the real structural margin would be far less than 6x, especially in a fire/impact damaged structure, so the towers fell.
The other thing to consider once the collapse started was that the uneven distribution of office furnishings/junk on the floors made pure "pancaking" impossible, the debris served to concentrate the loads unevenly across the floor, so the loads would've exceeded the average load capacity in hundreds of places, shattering the concrete floor slab into hundreds of chunks (and lots more concrete dust). These falling slabs would themselves concentrate the forces unequally on the floors below them, so calculations/estimates of floor strengths go out the window when you're talking about hundreds of tons of irregular concrete slabs raining down on the floors.
There are various versions of how the collapse was inevitable, but these can be seen as complimentary, not contradictory. If a helicopter falls off the end of a pier and lands upside down in the ocean, which is the bigger problem preventing it from taking off again, that it's upside down or that it's underwater? You can argue that either point is dominant, but that's where the concept of "totally screwed" comes from.
As for the Dark Innuendo articles, I'm not that impressed. Just because powerful people meet from time to time doesn't imply that they're conspiring to commit something sinister. Plumbers have conventions in Vegas every year, and I seriously doubt that they're plotting how to make our toilets back-up.
Like I said before, and explained at least three times in plain English, it's called "gravity".
The structure is there to hold the building up. When the structure fails, it falls.
The impact of upper-floor material 1) defeats the structural integrity of that floor in a split-second, and 2) accelerates the floor's mass to just-under the velocity of the upper-floors' material, also in a split second.
Add up the split seconds, and you end up with the additional 4 seconds.
As for demonstrating this on another abandoned building, find one that's as tall as the WTC and buy it and the plane that smacks into it at 450mph, weakening the structure and setting the fire, and let's go do it.
Otherwise, it'd probably be cheaper if you'd just learn enough physics to understand how it happened, and you won't need to spend the money.
In this case Lane and Lamont.
The quote he uses multiple times is from an ARUP document that was based upon a talk given at the NCE conference held at the Cavendish Conference Centre,
London 12 April 2005.
BEFORE the Final NIST report was released.
At the specific request of the NCE we will therefore comment on NIST’s probable collapse theory issued 5 April 2005.
We do not underestimate the enormous and very difficult task NIST are undertaking. Arup as well as many other interested parties are following NIST’s progress with interest. Sometimes however we may disagree with NIST and we therefore currently plan to comment on the draft final report due in June as part of the public consultation process before the final issue in September.
So what did they ACTUALLY SAY?
Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame.
Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding
insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.
The goal is to develop better solutions for fire, without total reliance on passive fire protection, or on single element behaviour. That way we can take advantage of intrinsic design strengths, and attempt to design out any intrinsic design
weakness, in the future. This is not an easy goal, and we consider the impetus from
NIST’s work to be a major stepping stone along the road to the profession achieving this.
Do they ACTUALLY disagree (fundamentally) with NIST?
They had this main issue:
Our main concern with this conclusion is that thermal expansion can swamp all other behaviours and this is not discussed in the NIST report yet. We believe it should be included in a thermo-mechanical analysis to predict the response of any structure to fire, particularly when determining a probable collapse mechanism.
==> NOTE NIST added their analysis of thermal expansion to the final report. As it turns out, thermal expansion did NOT swamp all other behaviours.
Does ARUP believe it was Thermate or CD?
Nope: Protected structures - especially slender elements like truss diagonals - heat and deform in a fire. Fire protection is not a shield, it only delays heating. So in a global structural system it is our view that fire proofing to structural steelwork does not imply collapse cannot occur.
They show a SLIGHTLY different view of how a collapse could have been started relying on BOTH thermal expansion and bowing in of the columns.
See figure page 8 found in report at http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6267
http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf
From the paper:
It is our view that the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically important document for tall building design worldwide.
Now to the ACTUAL quote that is used by Moe.
QUOTE
“core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005)
You KNOW how you can tell when a Troofer is using a quote out of context.
Simple they use a short quote and usually just a PART of a sentence.
Here is the PARAGRAPH that line is from:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005) |
You KNOW how you can tell when a Troofer is using a quote out of context.
Simple they use a short quote and usually just a PART of a sentence.
Here is the PARAGRAPH that line is from:
Crude initial calculations indicate that the elastic downward deflection at half the modulus (say at approx. 500C) will be roughly 38mm.
Assuming plastic strains, a maximum yielding of approximately 190mm is possible.
If the downward displacement is 300mm as assumed, the rotation at the perimeter connection would be 300mm vertical over an 18000mm span - extremely small.
The floor elongation must be less than 2.5mm to generate tensile pulling forces on the exterior columns as a result of the column shortening in the core.
Thermal expansion of the floor truss would be 65mm at 300°C over a length of 18000mm.
Therefore the 2.5mm is swamped by thermal expansion and the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor simply as a result of column shortening.
And what do you know, NIST AGREES with the ENTIRE sentence: the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor SIMPLY AS A RESULT OF COLUMN SHORTENING.
Typical, who but someone who wants to INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE would leave the last part of that sentence off?
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 4 2007, 09:49 AM)
It's called "gravity".
The top part falls and accelerates as it falls.
If nothing were in its way, it'd hit the ground in less than 10 seconds.
Something is in its way, though, the lower part of the building.
So how much resistance to the upper block's descent does the lower building put up? It puts up about the same amount of resistance with each floor (equal to the structural strength of that floor).
I'm with you until you get to this point.
Are you suggesting that each floor of the WTC was supported only by the floor immediately below it? Because it seems to me that the foundation of a building has got to support the whole structure; and the first floor has got to support all the floors above it; and the first two floors have got to support all the floors above them; etc. How easy it would be to construct buildings if you needn't concern yourself about the integrity of the building more than one floor below! Unless of course you accidentally drop a needle on top of the building ... and then watch out!
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 4 2007, 09:20 PM)
Not true.
Not true again.
WTC 1 took 18 seconds to collapse. The Heath video (audio portion) absolutely established this. The majority of the debris came to a smashing halt in the lowest sub-basement at about 13 seconds. The recent, careful calculation in Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson states 12.8 seconds and I'll not quibble about a mere 0.2 seconds, as the determination of 'about 13 seconds' is rather approximate in any case.
A Fox 5 video shows the bottom of the crushing from passing the top of WTC 3 (about 80 meters) after about 11-12 seconds of collapse with about 2 more seconds to go to reach the lowest sub-basement.
13 seconds is not close to free fall time. Riiiiiiiight. Okay, so it is more than 30% off free fall time. That still begs the question. If there was nothing but air blocking the top floor as it fell it would land in about 9 seconds. The majority of the debris landed barely 4 seconds later than this. So how does a whole building disintegrate in 4 seconds longer than it would take the top floor to fall through the air? Your progressive collapse is quite impressive, overcoming the inertia of a whole 80 floors of a building in 4 seconds. Now, if it has always been so easy to demolish a building, why has anybody wasted their time using explosives to take down buildings? Just dump kerosene all over one floor about 80% up the building and light it on fire, and that's all you need to do! It should be easy to replicate this experiment in some abandoned buildings.
Not true again.
WTC 1 took 18 seconds to collapse. The Heath video (audio portion) absolutely established this. The majority of the debris came to a smashing halt in the lowest sub-basement at about 13 seconds. The recent, careful calculation in Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson states 12.8 seconds and I'll not quibble about a mere 0.2 seconds, as the determination of 'about 13 seconds' is rather approximate in any case.
A Fox 5 video shows the bottom of the crushing from passing the top of WTC 3 (about 80 meters) after about 11-12 seconds of collapse with about 2 more seconds to go to reach the lowest sub-basement.
13 seconds is not close to free fall time. Riiiiiiiight. Okay, so it is more than 30% off free fall time. That still begs the question. If there was nothing but air blocking the top floor as it fell it would land in about 9 seconds. The majority of the debris landed barely 4 seconds later than this. So how does a whole building disintegrate in 4 seconds longer than it would take the top floor to fall through the air? Your progressive collapse is quite impressive, overcoming the inertia of a whole 80 floors of a building in 4 seconds. Now, if it has always been so easy to demolish a building, why has anybody wasted their time using explosives to take down buildings? Just dump kerosene all over one floor about 80% up the building and light it on fire, and that's all you need to do! It should be easy to replicate this experiment in some abandoned buildings.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 4 2007, 09:37 PM)
For the correct physics without calculus, see Greening's "Energy Transfer" paper.
For the correct physics using the calculus, see Bazant & Verdure's paper, obtainable from Professor Bazant's web site.
I wonder, is this how you hold conversations IRL? "Here, read this paper." "Here, read this other paper."
For the correct physics using the calculus, see Bazant & Verdure's paper, obtainable from Professor Bazant's web site.
I wonder, is this how you hold conversations IRL? "Here, read this paper." "Here, read this other paper."
Righty, if the fire was so intense that it softened steel, then how was that woman standing and waving in the hole made by the airplane in WTC 1, without burning up?
QUOTE (Oneismany+Jun 5 2007, 02:27 PM)
...
Now, if it has always been so easy to demolish a building, why has anybody wasted their time using explosives to take down buildings? Just dump kerosene all over one floor about 80% up the building and light it on fire, and that's all you need to do! It should be easy to replicate this experiment in some abandoned buildings.
Exactly.
Nothing more need to be said really.
And like you said "It should be easy to replicate this experiment in some abandoned buildings."
Now, if it has always been so easy to demolish a building, why has anybody wasted their time using explosives to take down buildings? Just dump kerosene all over one floor about 80% up the building and light it on fire, and that's all you need to do! It should be easy to replicate this experiment in some abandoned buildings.
Exactly.
Nothing more need to be said really.
And like you said "It should be easy to replicate this experiment in some abandoned buildings."
QUOTE
and the first floor has got to support all the floors above it; and the first two floors have got to support all the floors above them; etc.
You're correct, the more accurate way of explaining the concept would require including the differential strength of each floor as a function of the number of floors above it, but when you're talking about a building with 100+ floors, and you're talking about the floors in the middle of the building (more or less) the differential structural strength is a matter of a few percent per floor (in the ideal case), and since I'm showing the collision mechanism of why each floor fails far short of stopping the falling floors above, a few percent is easier to leave out than its contribution is worth explaining.
It's still a matter that each floor's maximum strength gets exceeded by a large factor in the collision with the falling floors from above. 30 floors falling ten feet, trying to stop them in two feet, means you have to provide a net force equal to 6x the weight of the 30 floors or the upper falling mass won't stop.
CDiots won't understand the significance of that factor-of-six dynamic load, Malmo has already stated that he thought the WTC was designed to accommodate dynamic loads of 2000% (meaning it had 20x the steel in it necessary to hold it up), but the real structural margin would be far less than 6x, especially in a fire/impact damaged structure, so the towers fell.
The other thing to consider once the collapse started was that the uneven distribution of office furnishings/junk on the floors made pure "pancaking" impossible, the debris served to concentrate the loads unevenly across the floor, so the loads would've exceeded the average load capacity in hundreds of places, shattering the concrete floor slab into hundreds of chunks (and lots more concrete dust). These falling slabs would themselves concentrate the forces unequally on the floors below them, so calculations/estimates of floor strengths go out the window when you're talking about hundreds of tons of irregular concrete slabs raining down on the floors.
There are various versions of how the collapse was inevitable, but these can be seen as complimentary, not contradictory. If a helicopter falls off the end of a pier and lands upside down in the ocean, which is the bigger problem preventing it from taking off again, that it's upside down or that it's underwater? You can argue that either point is dominant, but that's where the concept of "totally screwed" comes from.
As for the Dark Innuendo articles, I'm not that impressed. Just because powerful people meet from time to time doesn't imply that they're conspiring to commit something sinister. Plumbers have conventions in Vegas every year, and I seriously doubt that they're plotting how to make our toilets back-up.
QUOTE
Your progressive collapse is quite impressive, overcoming the inertia of a whole 80 floors of a building in 4 seconds.
Like I said before, and explained at least three times in plain English, it's called "gravity".
The structure is there to hold the building up. When the structure fails, it falls.
The impact of upper-floor material 1) defeats the structural integrity of that floor in a split-second, and 2) accelerates the floor's mass to just-under the velocity of the upper-floors' material, also in a split second.
Add up the split seconds, and you end up with the additional 4 seconds.
As for demonstrating this on another abandoned building, find one that's as tall as the WTC and buy it and the plane that smacks into it at 450mph, weakening the structure and setting the fire, and let's go do it.
Otherwise, it'd probably be cheaper if you'd just learn enough physics to understand how it happened, and you won't need to spend the money.
Oneismany
You can stand upwind of a wildfire, even though you are standing on ground the fire has already burned and if you had been there 10 minutes earlier you would have been standing in fire.
You can stand upwind of a wildfire, even though you are standing on ground the fire has already burned and if you had been there 10 minutes earlier you would have been standing in fire.
Are you suggesting that each floor of the WTC was supported only by the floor immediately below it?
What we all keep having to point out, each floor was ONLY supported by the connections between that floor and the core and outer frame. They could hold only about twice the design floor load before those connections failed, bypassing the strength of the core and outer frame. Each FLOOR's strength was the same, it was the strength of the frame which increased. Each floor had to hold up their own weight alone.
Grumpy
Clearly true.
Underlying all their arguments, of course, is the Dark Innuendo that the New World Order (their favorite strawman) was behind the attacks, and that "when the Revolution comes", that these same CDiots are going to take over the world, running it *their* way.
I'm not at all interested in having them running things, as they've already demonstrated their willingness to lie to advance their cause, and their total ignorance of how things work in the real world. *Their* version of the New World Order, Part II, would be an Orwellian nightmare worse than their own paranoid delusions of how things are today.
Funny how easily they assume that destroying the WTC would be considered an idea that the NWO would implement. They must feel that the appeal of such an idea would be irresistible to someone in a position of power. And *they* want that power for themselves. I can only assume that if *they* were running things and someone approached them with a similar idea, that *they* would make that decision themselves.
Notice they exhibit the same assumption that the vast majority of the people are too ignorant to understand what *they* understand. Notice how quickly they dismiss the technical qualifications of people with more education and experience than they have.
Their version of the New World Order, Part II, has already been tried. Pol Pot was their leader.
Thanks, but No Thanks!
Gee, Arthur, I'm looking for those steel floor pans that Malmo so glibly asserted were protecting the undersides of the floor trusses from fire, and I can't seem to see them in your pictures...
I wonder what happened to them?
Surely, Malmo wouldn't have claimed they existed without any justification, would he?
Do you think you are funny? you are not. you are making an idiot of your self. And what are you talking about?? " that these same CDiots are going to take over the world, running it *their* way" okey??. Their should be good people in the government not child killers,pedophiles,drug smugglers. THEY are the ones that runs things today. There are many good people in the government to!, but they dont run things. We need people like ron paul and good people like him in power. Not criminals that want to do martial law and take over the world, like they are doing RIGHT NOW.
I guess you dont know something about this and that it never happened
Gulf of tonkin
Operation ajax
Operation northwoods
Operation mockingbird
Mkultra
P2
Banks from london and the bush family funded hitler
CIA created/funded al-qaida
Peal harbor. America knew that the attack was coming but didnt tell it to their soldiers and the people on the ship, they let theme die, so they could get an excuse to attack japan.
The PNAC documents that was written by dic k cheny and others one year before 9-11, where they said that they needed a New pearl harbor, and that it would help them get global domination and power, and how they needed money, for them to build this super power, and when 9-11 happen they got that money!
The patriot act, that came after 9-11. Thats what hitler did, attacked himself and blamed it on a nother country and took away his peoples freedoms.
FBI was behind the 1993 WTC bombing.
Donald Rumsfeld put Aspartame in your food. Who have put that in food before? Hitler gave it to the jews
The anthrax letters they said came from saddam came from military labs in america.
There are NO law that you should pay income tax and yet you haft to, and the money goes to a privet bank.
I can go on and on with things they have done and lies they have said. You need to read some history and find out what the NWO is about.
George Herbert Walker Bush - "The war in Iraq is a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge."
James Paul Warburg - "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
Albert Einstein - "The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses."
adoucette
Do you think you are funny? you are not. you are making an idiot of your self. And what are you talking about?? " that these same CDiots are going to take over the world, running it *their* way" okey??. Their should be good people in the government not child killers,pedophiles,drug smugglers. THEY are the ones that runs things today. There are many good people in the government to!, but they dont run things. We need people like ron paul and good people like him in power. Not criminals that want to do martial law and take over the world, like they are doing RIGHT NOW.
I guess you dont know something about this and that it never happened
Gulf of tonkin
Operation ajax
Operation northwoods
Operation mockingbird
Mkultra
P2
Banks from london and the bush family funded hitler
CIA created/funded al-qaida
Peal harbor. America knew that the attack was coming but didnt tell it to their soldiers and the people on the ship, they let theme die, so they could get an excuse to attack japan.
The PNAC documents that was written by dic k cheny and others one year before 9-11, where they said that they needed a New pearl harbor, and that it would help them get global domination and power, and how they needed money, for them to build this super power, and when 9-11 happen they got that money!
The patriot act, that came after 9-11. Thats what hitler did, attacked himself and blamed it on a nother country and took away his peoples freedoms.
FBI was behind the 1993 WTC bombing.
Donald Rumsfeld put Aspartame in your food. Who have put that in food before? Hitler gave it to the jews
The anthrax letters they said came from saddam came from military labs in america.
There are NO law that you should pay income tax and yet you haft to, and the money goes to a privet bank.
I can go on and on with things they have done and lies they have said. You need to read some history and find out what the NWO is about.
George Herbert Walker Bush - "The war in Iraq is a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge."
James Paul Warburg - "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
Albert Einstein - "The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses."
adoucette
Which just goes to show how UNINTERESTED the "TRUTHERS" are in the TRUTH
The trusses in the Broadgate fire didnt come close to fail! and the temperature was 800-900C
And the 1975 World Trade Center North Tower Fire, that burned for 4 hours didnt even make the trusse come close to fail.
NIST OWN TEST of the trusses under fire for 2 hours didnt fail!.
And yeah right NIST/FEMA never lies, thats why fema said that the bulding didnt have a core?? LOL
And why is NIST afraid of showing the (Tweaked) computer model of the collapse of the building?? the one that dont shows what happen 1 sec after the collapse had begun, because they didnt have any money left 1 sec after the collapse had started. The real models with the damage from the evidence, plane damage and so on didnt collapse.
I think it was GRUMPY that said that all you needed for the collapse to happen was the plane crash so far away from reality that it is sad.
An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
Steel-frame: Huge core (left) is an enormous heat sink. Notice workers standing on floor pan which is firmly attached to the interconnected core columns.
*www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0615.jpg
Everything i said in the post is true. So what is false?? its history idiot.
Say one thing that aint true then, besides that there are no law to pay income tax???
And can you please show me and the rest of the world the law that says you must pay income tax??. Stop the jokes. There are places you can win money if you show the law
Everything i said in the post is true. So what is false?? its history idiot.
Say one thing that aint true then, besides that there are no law to pay income tax???
And can you please show me and the rest of the world the law that says you must pay income tax??. Stop the jokes. There are places you can win money if you show the law
Virtually nothing you say is true Moe.
My runner up for your most moronic quote:
Which is a fairly silly statement since they show a diagram of the core and label it: Core Columns resist 60% of building weight, Equally distributed.
FEMA - Chap 2 Building Perf Study, Fig 2-19
The law that allows the govt to impose an income tax is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Ame...es_Constitution
Now how much money can I win?
Arthur
Everything is true. Funny, you are saying things that are history arent true. the stuff is open and admitted, look it up, check the facts. You cant disprove one thing of it. Do you like to talk about things you know nothing about?. Check the facts and stop being a zombie.
No FEMA lied about the core in the beginning.
They substitute service core for core structure to help the reader think the buildings were flimsy:
"A rectangular service core with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16 escalators."
"The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south."
Deceptive illustrations imply that the towers had no core columns.
FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."
FEMA's Report Misrepresents the Tower's Construction
FEMA's report pretends the towers would instantly self-destruct if the floors fell away.
Key to this deception is hiding the strength of the core structures.
Core column cross-sections are shown about 1/3rd their actual dimensions.
(if they are shown at all).
Cross-bracing core beams are not shown.
Report lacks description of core structures.
Report's description of the towers fails to account for about 30 percent of the steel thought to have been used in their construction.
Report has only one photo giving size comparison of core column.
It fraudulently presents a much smaller column as a Twin Tower core column
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
Abundantly cross-braced
Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
Anchored directly to bedrock
Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The towers were designed to withstand 140 MPH winds.
In such cases the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads loads between perimeter walls and core. Otherwise, structural function of the floors was not in play.
Everything is true. Funny, you are saying things that are history arent true. the stuff is open and admitted, look it up, check the facts. You cant disprove one thing of it. Do you like to talk about things you know nothing about?. Check the facts and stop being a zombie.
No FEMA lied about the core in the beginning.
They substitute service core for core structure to help the reader think the buildings were flimsy:
"A rectangular service core with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16 escalators."
"The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south."
Deceptive illustrations imply that the towers had no core columns.
FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."
FEMA's Report Misrepresents the Tower's Construction
FEMA's report pretends the towers would instantly self-destruct if the floors fell away.
Key to this deception is hiding the strength of the core structures.
Core column cross-sections are shown about 1/3rd their actual dimensions.
(if they are shown at all).
Cross-bracing core beams are not shown.
Report lacks description of core structures.
Report's description of the towers fails to account for about 30 percent of the steel thought to have been used in their construction.
Report has only one photo giving size comparison of core column.
It fraudulently presents a much smaller column as a Twin Tower core column
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
Abundantly cross-braced
Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
Anchored directly to bedrock
Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The towers were designed to withstand 140 MPH winds.
In such cases the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads loads between perimeter walls and core. Otherwise, structural function of the floors was not in play.
The law that allows the govt to impose an income tax is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:
lol. Thats not the law. Watch the movie America freedom to fascism with Arron russo, the movie will blow you away. And read the REAL Constitution (Where there are NO law for you to pay an income tax), Citizens rule book bill of right jury hand book. And this book about the banks is very good to, The coming battle the complete banking money power history of the U.S from 1776 to 1899.
America freedom to fascism: http*://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=Aaron+russo+america+freedom+to+facism
As opposed to the one on-display in DC, which Malmo must assume is counterfeit.
So what are taxes like in Sweden, Malmo? Do you have to pay taxes there?
I read the article, it was a pile of cr@p.
Your words are far from what is presented in this article. It centers on the CFR and 9/11. In the greater scheme, they are but a small facet of the hidden forces at work.
To reiterate, this IS a small, factual historical article, common knowledge to those who have studied in this area.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley5.htm
THE TRUE STORY OF 9-11
PART 2 of 2
By Dr. Stanley Monteith
June 3, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
My previous article (The True Story of 9/11, Part I) closed with Professor Carroll Quigley’s revelation that:
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. . . . I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. . . ."[1]
When I researched Colonel House's papers at Yale University, I found a copy of a letter that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent Colonel House on November 21, 1933, that contained the following statement:
"I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day. . . . J.P.M. (J.P. Morgan, ed) did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing. . . . The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson. . . . The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States - - only on a far bigger and broader basis."[2]
Who controls the U.S. government today? Members of David Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers (BdB), the Trilateral Commission (TC), the Club of Rome (CR), leading Masons, occult groups, and the Spiritual Hierarchy that energizes them. I call them the "Brotherhood of Darkness." They control both political parties, the presidency, the mass media, most major banks, most major corporations, and most of the wealth of the world.[3] If that is true, why hasn't someone told the American people? Because most journalists and most media pundits want to keep their jobs, and don't want to end up like Gary Webb, a Pulitzer prize winning columnist who exposed the CIA's involvement in the drug trade, who shot himself in the head twice to make certain he was dead.
Richard Harwood, the former editorial page editor of The Washington Post, tried to expose the CFR's control of our government in 1993 when he wrote:
"The president is a member. So is his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of housing and urban development, interior, health and human services and the chief White House public relations man, David Gergen, are members, along with the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate."[4]
The Washington Post article continued (October 30, 1993):
"In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc, Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, who is now President Clinton's ambassador at large in the Slavic world. The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katherine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership. The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly newsmagazines, network television executives and celebrities - Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example - and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland."[5]
Professor Ben Bagdikian's book, The New Media Monopoly, documents the fact that five mega corporations control 90% of the American media. The book is available from Radio Liberty. Lt. General William Odom headed the NSA, the intelligence organization that tracks our phone calls, our e-mails, our faxes, and our activities. The "Secrecy Agreement" he signed prevents him from revealing what is taking place, but his book, Fixing Intelligence (2003) noted:
". . . should the CIA be permitted to carry out assassinations? Should Army Counter- intelligence be involved in domestic surveillance of civilians? Should CIA clandestine officers be allowed to have cover as journalists?"[6]
If those things are taking place, what can we do? Members of the BOD control most media outlets, the police, the military, the government, the religious establishment, and most of the wealth of the world, but they fear the public will learn the truth about the events that took place on 9/11, so they have launched a massive media campaign to convince the public the "official version of 9/11" is correct. The September 11, 2006, issue of U.S. News and World Report published an article that laments:
"Even as conspiracy theories thrived abroad, they mostly fell on deaf ears in the first years after the attacks. But as the fifth anniversary nears, 9/11 Truth and its outlandish claims have become an online phenomenon - and are proving startlingly persuasive. In a July 2006 Scripps Howard poll, 16 percent of respondents said it was 'very likely' that federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen to justify war in the Middle East, while a further 20 percent said it was 'somewhat likely.'"[7]
The September 8, 2006 edition of World Affairs Brief states:
"Current polls put the numbers as high as 39% of Americans believe the US government was in some way complicit in the terror attack of 9/11. That's a very high number, surpassed only by the percentage of people that disbelieve the official government version about the assassination of JFK - 69%."[8]
Joel Skousen cited a recent article in the UK Daily Mail that states:
"The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an 'inside job,' according to a group of leading academics. Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday. But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated."[9]
Millions of Americans saw the C-Span broadcast of the "American Scholars Symposium," and learned about the 9/11 military exercises that simulated terrorist hijackings, and the fact that most of the fighter planes that were supposed to guard Washington, D.C. that morning were participating in military exercises in Canada.[10]
The U.S. News and World Report article continued:
"There are some divergent strands among the conspiracy theorists, but for most of them, the story has two major tenets: The World Trade Center towers and nearby Building 7, though struck by planes, were brought down by controlled demolitions, and the Pentagon was struck by a missile, not a plane."[11]
Why did the author suggest Building 7 was struck by a plane? No plane struck Building 7, and no reinforced steel building has ever collapsed because of a fire. You can watch the professionally controlled collapse of Building 7 at: [Read].
The Bush administration tried to block the effort to determine what happened because they claimed a lengthy investigation would "detract from the war on terrorism." When that argument failed to dissuade the public, the BOD organized two investigations: "The Joint Intelligence Committee" and the "9/11 Commission."
The Joint Intelligence Committee didn't try to determine why Building 7 collapsed because both Senator Bob Graham and Congressman Porter Goss, the co-chairmen of the committee, are members of the CFR. In addition, the Bush administration censored the report.[12]
The 9/11 Commission didn't determine why Building 7 collapsed because the Chairman, Thomas Kean, the vice-Chairman, Lee Hamilton, two members, Jamie Gorelick and John Lehman, and the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, are members of the CFR.[13] Former Senator Max Cleland was a member, but when it became obvious he wouldn't participate in the charade, he was replaced. Again, the Bush administration censored the report.[14] Since there are almost 300 million people living in the U.S., and there are only 4000 members of the CFR, do you honestly believe the CFR's control of both investigations was an accident?
I will continue my discussion of the 9/11 attack, and the coming war with Iran, in Part III of this article. If we can convince the American people they haven't been told the truth about the events that took place on 9/11, we may be able to prevent World War III, and preserve our nation.
The current situation reminds me of Martin Luther's immortal words,
"A mighty fortress is our God, A bulwark never failing; Our helper He, amid the flood Of mortal ills prevailing: For still our ancient foe Doth seek to work us woe; His craft and power are great, And, armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal."(14)
I believe we are engaged in a spiritual battle for the souls of men and the survival of Christian civilization. Our task is to do our best.
References:
1. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1966, p. 950.
2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: letter to Colonel House, Sterling Library, Yale University, November 21, 1933. Copy available from Radio Liberty.
3. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and THe New World Order
4. Richard Harwood, op. cit.
5. Ibid
6, William Odom, Fixing Intelligence, Yale University Press, 2003, front flap cover.
7. Will Sullivan, "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll," U.S. News & World Report, September 11, 2006, p. 39.
8. Joel Skousen, World Affairs Brief, Sept 8, 2006, p. 2.
9. Ibid and "American Scholars Symposium,"
10. Will Sullivan, op. cit.
11. Robert Gaylon Ross, Who's Who of the Elite, RIE, Spicewood, TX. CFR membership list.
12. Ibid
13. Thomas Kean et al, Without Precedent, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006, pp. 130-131.
14. Charles Johnson, One hundred and One famous hymns, Hallberg Publishing Co., Delaware, WI, 1983, p. 21.
© 2005 Stanley Monteith - All Rights Reserved
AND MAY THE LORD OUR GOD SHOW US HIS APPROVAL
AND MAKE OUR EFFORTS SUCCESSFUL
YES MAKE OUR EFFORTS SUCCESSFUL
OK, who here feels my assessment of this article ("a pile of cr@p") was off-base?
the Club of Rome (CR), leading Masons, occult groups, and the Spiritual Hierarchy that energizes them. I call them the "Brotherhood of Darkness."
OK, who here feels my assessment of this article ("a pile of cr@p") was off-base?
Answer his question if you have studied in this area; otherwise, you would be demonstrating a lack of knowledge based upon facts.
If you have studied and know the history, go ahead, answer him.
Tell the truth.
Oh, one other thing. He has not shown anything in the article to be untrue.
Keep that in mind.
FOR OUR STRUGGLE IS NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD
BUT AGAINST THE RULERS
AGAINST THE POWERS
AGAINST THE WORLD FORCES OF THIS DARKNESS
AGAINST THE SPIRITUAL FORCES OF WICKEDNESS IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES
Or, he's just making the same mistake that all paranoid people make, assuming that people they hate, hate them back.
Corporations act in their self-interest because that's what the law requires of them. They put profit first because that's their primary obligation to their investors. If you invested money in a company that makes junk food and they suddenly decided to invest your money in tofu-burgers and you lost your shirt, you'd have good reason to complain. Corporations have charters and are legally obligated to make decisions based on the stockholders' best interests. This makes them seem heartless, but providing warm-fuzzies isn't their job, making profit is.
So corporations of all sorts make decisions to maximize their investors' profits.
And when you have lots of different companies all pursuing the same goals, it looks from the outside like they're acting in collusion. Conspiracy theorists make the assumption that every association is sinister, and that every meeting is part of a plot.
There's a plumbers' convention in Vegas every year, do you really think they're getting together to plot ways to make our toilets stop up?
Corporations act in their self-interest because that's what the law requires of them. They put profit first because that's their primary obligation to their investors. If you invested money in a company that makes junk food and they suddenly decided to invest your money in tofu-burgers and you lost your shirt, you'd have good reason to complain. Corporations have charters and are legally obligated to make decisions based on the stockholders' best interests. This makes them seem heartless, but providing warm-fuzzies isn't their job, making profit is.
So corporations of all sorts make decisions to maximize their investors' profits.
What you just wrote is right-on.
And when you have lots of different companies all pursuing the same goals, it looks from the outside like they're acting in collusion. Conspiracy theorists make the assumption that every association is sinister, and that every meeting is part of a plot.
There's a plumbers' convention in Vegas every year, do you really think they're getting together to plot ways to make our toilets stop up?
But now you've slipped a few gears with blanket statements and faulty theorizing.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD
AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD
AND THE WORD WAS GOD
A statement so blatently ridiculous that it hardly warrants a comment, but I'd be mildly interested in seeing your math.
Did you know that in the bombed Murray building there was literally one column left! The whole damned building was still standing on a single column! And we have to believe that all wtc7's columns snapped simultaneously because of fire? That will happen once in 10^88 times the duration of our universe.
Do you just make $hit up or what?
Yeah, I guess you do.
Why is it that "Troofers" have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH?
Do you enjoy just the process of spreading lies?
What satisfaction can you get when your lies are so easily repudiated?
These seem to post better.
http://www.prism-magazine.org/feb00/assets/oklahoma.jpg
http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/murrah.jpg
QUOTE
Righty, if the fire was so intense that it softened steel, then how was that woman standing and waving in the hole made by the airplane in WTC 1, without burning up?
You can stand upwind of a wildfire, even though you are standing on ground the fire has already burned and if you had been there 10 minutes earlier you would have been standing in fire.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Righty, if the fire was so intense that it softened steel, then how was that woman standing and waving in the hole made by the airplane in WTC 1, without burning up? |
You can stand upwind of a wildfire, even though you are standing on ground the fire has already burned and if you had been there 10 minutes earlier you would have been standing in fire.
Are you suggesting that each floor of the WTC was supported only by the floor immediately below it?
What we all keep having to point out, each floor was ONLY supported by the connections between that floor and the core and outer frame. They could hold only about twice the design floor load before those connections failed, bypassing the strength of the core and outer frame. Each FLOOR's strength was the same, it was the strength of the frame which increased. Each floor had to hold up their own weight alone.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Oneismany+Jun 5 2007, 09:10 AM)
Are you suggesting that each floor of the WTC was supported only by the floor immediately below it? Because it seems to me that the foundation of a building has got to support the whole structure; and the first floor has got to support all the floors above it; and the first two floors have got to support all the floors above them; etc. How easy it would be to construct buildings if you needn't concern yourself about the integrity of the building more than one floor below! Unless of course you accidentally drop a needle on top of the building ... and then watch out!
Actually the floor is not AT ALL supported by the floor below it.
Do you not understand how the towers were constructed?
They were MOSTLY AIR. The concrete floors all stacked together represented ~ 2.5% of the towers height. (the thicker core flooring represented but ~ 4%)
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ionimage017.jpg
Those TRUSS SEATS (and a similar set on the core side) were ALL that held a single floor up.
They didn't have to be that strong because the MOST they had to hold was the as built weight of just ONE floor and a small reserve over the maximum live load.
While the columns WERE very strong, photographic evidence of ground zero makes it quite clear that the floors were STRIPPED from the columns and the exterior columns mostly broke apart at their BOLTED connections. Very few of the preimeter columns are found that are not reasonably pristine in shape.
For example:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...e/WTC1scene.jpg
Arthur
Actually the floor is not AT ALL supported by the floor below it.
Do you not understand how the towers were constructed?
They were MOSTLY AIR. The concrete floors all stacked together represented ~ 2.5% of the towers height. (the thicker core flooring represented but ~ 4%)
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ionimage017.jpg
Those TRUSS SEATS (and a similar set on the core side) were ALL that held a single floor up.
They didn't have to be that strong because the MOST they had to hold was the as built weight of just ONE floor and a small reserve over the maximum live load.
While the columns WERE very strong, photographic evidence of ground zero makes it quite clear that the floors were STRIPPED from the columns and the exterior columns mostly broke apart at their BOLTED connections. Very few of the preimeter columns are found that are not reasonably pristine in shape.
For example:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...e/WTC1scene.jpg
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 5 2007, 10:32 AM)
What we all keep having to point out, each floor was ONLY supported by the connections between that floor and the core and outer frame. They could hold only about twice the design floor load before those connections failed, bypassing the strength of the core and outer frame. Each FLOOR's strength was the same, it was the strength of the frame which increased. Each floor had to hold up their own weight alone.
Grumpy
Which just goes to show how UNINTERESTED the "TRUTHERS" are in the TRUTH.
They conveniently IGNORE how the towers were built and simply attack their own strawmen.
Arthur
Grumpy
Which just goes to show how UNINTERESTED the "TRUTHERS" are in the TRUTH.
They conveniently IGNORE how the towers were built and simply attack their own strawmen.
Arthur
QUOTE
Which just goes to show how UNINTERESTED the "TRUTHERS" are in the TRUTH.
They conveniently IGNORE how the towers were built and simply attack their own strawmen.
They conveniently IGNORE how the towers were built and simply attack their own strawmen.
Clearly true.
Underlying all their arguments, of course, is the Dark Innuendo that the New World Order (their favorite strawman) was behind the attacks, and that "when the Revolution comes", that these same CDiots are going to take over the world, running it *their* way.
I'm not at all interested in having them running things, as they've already demonstrated their willingness to lie to advance their cause, and their total ignorance of how things work in the real world. *Their* version of the New World Order, Part II, would be an Orwellian nightmare worse than their own paranoid delusions of how things are today.
Funny how easily they assume that destroying the WTC would be considered an idea that the NWO would implement. They must feel that the appeal of such an idea would be irresistible to someone in a position of power. And *they* want that power for themselves. I can only assume that if *they* were running things and someone approached them with a similar idea, that *they* would make that decision themselves.
Notice they exhibit the same assumption that the vast majority of the people are too ignorant to understand what *they* understand. Notice how quickly they dismiss the technical qualifications of people with more education and experience than they have.
Their version of the New World Order, Part II, has already been tried. Pol Pot was their leader.
Thanks, but No Thanks!
NF, have you seen this? (Sorry guys, cause it's 'off topic'.)
UMass team develops new polymer with dual benefits
It's practically fireproof and it's nearly green
AMHERST, MASS. — Some plastics burn so readily that they are referred to as solid gasoline. So for years, a fireproof, affordable plastic has been the Holy Grail for everyone from NASA to the makers of children's clothing.
A team of scientists at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst has developed a polymer — the basic building block of plastic — that has the dual benefits of being nearly fireproof and green.
It contains none of the compounds typically added to plastics as flame retardants that can be damaging to human health, chemicals that have been banned in some countries.
The synthetic polymer, called bishydroxydeoxybenzoin or BHDB, was developed by a team led by UMass polymer scientists Richard J. Farris, E. Bryan Coughlin and Todd S. Emrick. The researchers recently presented an update on their work to industry representatives and scientists from the FAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Army. The team described the new polymer in the journal Macromolecules last year.
---
---
When a plastic burns, it decomposes. Some of it becomes a gas, which burns as flame. But what doesn't burn becomes what polymer scientists refer to as "char," which is the solid that is left behind.
More char, fewer volatiles
The goal when creating fire-resistant plastics is to have a very high char yield. More char means less fire and fewer volatile chemicals being released.
Most common plastics burn readily. For instance, polypropylene has a char yield of zero. BHDB has a char yield of 70 percent. When burned, it releases water vapor.
Fire-resistant plastics currently in use contain fire-retardant additives. Often, these are halogenated molecules that contain reactive chemicals such as chlorine, bromine or phosphorous.
These additives have come under increased scrutiny for being potentially damaging to human health and the environment. They have shown up in dust in homes and offices, and they have been found in fish, fat cells and breast milk.
UMass team develops new polymer with dual benefits
It's practically fireproof and it's nearly green
AMHERST, MASS. — Some plastics burn so readily that they are referred to as solid gasoline. So for years, a fireproof, affordable plastic has been the Holy Grail for everyone from NASA to the makers of children's clothing.
A team of scientists at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst has developed a polymer — the basic building block of plastic — that has the dual benefits of being nearly fireproof and green.
It contains none of the compounds typically added to plastics as flame retardants that can be damaging to human health, chemicals that have been banned in some countries.
The synthetic polymer, called bishydroxydeoxybenzoin or BHDB, was developed by a team led by UMass polymer scientists Richard J. Farris, E. Bryan Coughlin and Todd S. Emrick. The researchers recently presented an update on their work to industry representatives and scientists from the FAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Army. The team described the new polymer in the journal Macromolecules last year.
---
---
When a plastic burns, it decomposes. Some of it becomes a gas, which burns as flame. But what doesn't burn becomes what polymer scientists refer to as "char," which is the solid that is left behind.
More char, fewer volatiles
The goal when creating fire-resistant plastics is to have a very high char yield. More char means less fire and fewer volatile chemicals being released.
Most common plastics burn readily. For instance, polypropylene has a char yield of zero. BHDB has a char yield of 70 percent. When burned, it releases water vapor.
Fire-resistant plastics currently in use contain fire-retardant additives. Often, these are halogenated molecules that contain reactive chemicals such as chlorine, bromine or phosphorous.
These additives have come under increased scrutiny for being potentially damaging to human health and the environment. They have shown up in dust in homes and offices, and they have been found in fish, fat cells and breast milk.
Moe, it was the video you linked that claimed a nuclear weapon destroyed the tower. Tho you didn't say it yourself, linking to it is mighty close to the same thing. As for the explosions heard in two of those videos, I think those were sound effects added to those clips later. The first one, the guy is talking to his mom and doesn't say "I gotta go, things are blowing up!!" What'd he say? I think it was something like... "yeah, i'm fine." The second one shows a few guys walking towards the camera when the "explosion" is heard, and none of them even turn around to see what it was.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 5 2007, 06:52 PM)
The first one, the guy is talking to his mom and doesn't say "I gotta go, things are blowing up!!" What'd he say? I think it was something like... "yeah, i'm fine." The second one shows a few guys walking towards the camera when the "explosion" is heard, and none of them even turn around to see what it was.
It's this darn video game generation. Why they're totally acclimated to the sounds of explosives and the discharge of large firearms these days I tell yah. And another thing, the rock music, pssshhah, don't get me started about the rock music and the associated hearing loss. With their IPod's and their Shufflees and their MP3's blaring away, why a building could practically blow up right beside them and they wouldn't break stride. In my day...
It's this darn video game generation. Why they're totally acclimated to the sounds of explosives and the discharge of large firearms these days I tell yah. And another thing, the rock music, pssshhah, don't get me started about the rock music and the associated hearing loss. With their IPod's and their Shufflees and their MP3's blaring away, why a building could practically blow up right beside them and they wouldn't break stride. In my day...
Alan
LOL. You can clearly see that He that talks in the phone looks back, and a another fire man says "Seven is exploding" And then POINTS his hand to the building!, And a another fireman awnsers him "I know". You couldnt see this simple facts?
You need to read history like wcelliott and turn of the tv, because you are living in a dream world. If you was educated in history things like 9-11 wouldnt surprise you if it was an inside job.
QUOTE
and none of them even turn around to see what it was.
LOL
. You can clearly see that He that talks in the phone looks back, and a another fire man says "Seven is exploding" And then POINTS his hand to the building!, And a another fireman awnsers him "I know". You couldnt see this simple facts? You need to read history like wcelliott and turn of the tv, because you are living in a dream world. If you was educated in history things like 9-11 wouldnt surprise you if it was an inside job.
QUOTE
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ionimage017.jpg
Those TRUSS SEATS (and a similar set on the core side) were ALL that held a single floor up.
Those TRUSS SEATS (and a similar set on the core side) were ALL that held a single floor up.
Gee, Arthur, I'm looking for those steel floor pans that Malmo so glibly asserted were protecting the undersides of the floor trusses from fire, and I can't seem to see them in your pictures...
I wonder what happened to them?
Surely, Malmo wouldn't have claimed they existed without any justification, would he?
QUOTE
worse than their own paranoid delusions of how things are today. Their version of the New World Order, Part II, has already been tried. Pol Pot was their leader.
Do you think you are funny? you are not. you are making an idiot of your self. And what are you talking about?? " that these same CDiots are going to take over the world, running it *their* way" okey??. Their should be good people in the government not child killers,pedophiles,drug smugglers. THEY are the ones that runs things today. There are many good people in the government to!, but they dont run things. We need people like ron paul and good people like him in power. Not criminals that want to do martial law and take over the world, like they are doing RIGHT NOW.
I guess you dont know something about this and that it never happened
Gulf of tonkin
Operation ajax
Operation northwoods
Operation mockingbird
Mkultra
P2
Banks from london and the bush family funded hitler
CIA created/funded al-qaida
Peal harbor. America knew that the attack was coming but didnt tell it to their soldiers and the people on the ship, they let theme die, so they could get an excuse to attack japan.
The PNAC documents that was written by dic k cheny and others one year before 9-11, where they said that they needed a New pearl harbor, and that it would help them get global domination and power, and how they needed money, for them to build this super power, and when 9-11 happen they got that money!
The patriot act, that came after 9-11. Thats what hitler did, attacked himself and blamed it on a nother country and took away his peoples freedoms.
FBI was behind the 1993 WTC bombing.
Donald Rumsfeld put Aspartame in your food. Who have put that in food before? Hitler gave it to the jews
The anthrax letters they said came from saddam came from military labs in america.
There are NO law that you should pay income tax and yet you haft to, and the money goes to a privet bank.
I can go on and on with things they have done and lies they have said. You need to read some history and find out what the NWO is about.
George Herbert Walker Bush - "The war in Iraq is a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge."
James Paul Warburg - "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
Albert Einstein - "The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses."
adoucette
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| worse than their own paranoid delusions of how things are today. Their version of the New World Order, Part II, has already been tried. Pol Pot was their leader. |
Do you think you are funny? you are not. you are making an idiot of your self. And what are you talking about?? " that these same CDiots are going to take over the world, running it *their* way" okey??. Their should be good people in the government not child killers,pedophiles,drug smugglers. THEY are the ones that runs things today. There are many good people in the government to!, but they dont run things. We need people like ron paul and good people like him in power. Not criminals that want to do martial law and take over the world, like they are doing RIGHT NOW.
I guess you dont know something about this and that it never happened
Gulf of tonkin
Operation ajax
Operation northwoods
Operation mockingbird
Mkultra
P2
Banks from london and the bush family funded hitler
CIA created/funded al-qaida
Peal harbor. America knew that the attack was coming but didnt tell it to their soldiers and the people on the ship, they let theme die, so they could get an excuse to attack japan.
The PNAC documents that was written by dic k cheny and others one year before 9-11, where they said that they needed a New pearl harbor, and that it would help them get global domination and power, and how they needed money, for them to build this super power, and when 9-11 happen they got that money!
The patriot act, that came after 9-11. Thats what hitler did, attacked himself and blamed it on a nother country and took away his peoples freedoms.
FBI was behind the 1993 WTC bombing.
Donald Rumsfeld put Aspartame in your food. Who have put that in food before? Hitler gave it to the jews
The anthrax letters they said came from saddam came from military labs in america.
There are NO law that you should pay income tax and yet you haft to, and the money goes to a privet bank.
I can go on and on with things they have done and lies they have said. You need to read some history and find out what the NWO is about.
George Herbert Walker Bush - "The war in Iraq is a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge."
James Paul Warburg - "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
Albert Einstein - "The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses."
adoucette
Which just goes to show how UNINTERESTED the "TRUTHERS" are in the TRUTH
The trusses in the Broadgate fire didnt come close to fail! and the temperature was 800-900C
And the 1975 World Trade Center North Tower Fire, that burned for 4 hours didnt even make the trusse come close to fail.
NIST OWN TEST of the trusses under fire for 2 hours didnt fail!.
And yeah right NIST/FEMA never lies, thats why fema said that the bulding didnt have a core?? LOL
And why is NIST afraid of showing the (Tweaked) computer model of the collapse of the building?? the one that dont shows what happen 1 sec after the collapse had begun, because they didnt have any money left 1 sec after the collapse had started
. The real models with the damage from the evidence, plane damage and so on didnt collapse. I think it was GRUMPY that said that all you needed for the collapse to happen was the plane crash
so far away from reality that it is sad. An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
Truely moronic posts Moe.
My favorite:
ROTFLAMO
You keep posting BS and expecting us to comment on it.
Go play somewhere else.
Arthur
My favorite:
QUOTE
There are NO law that you should pay income tax and yet you haft to, and the money goes to a privet bank.
ROTFLAMO
You keep posting BS and expecting us to comment on it.
Go play somewhere else.
Arthur
Steel-frame: Huge core (left) is an enormous heat sink. Notice workers standing on floor pan which is firmly attached to the interconnected core columns.
*www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0615.jpg
QUOTE
Truely moronic posts Moe.
Everything i said in the post is true. So what is false?? its history idiot.
Say one thing that aint true then, besides that there are no law to pay income tax???
And can you please show me and the rest of the world the law that says you must pay income tax??
. Stop the jokes. There are places you can win money if you show the law
Folks, this is the stuff that the Al Qaida peddles to people like Malmo, trolling for gullible idiots to martyr themselves against the Evil Empire.
At this point, I'm pretty sure that if Malmo had a chance to kill Americans, he'd jump at it.
At this point, I'm pretty sure that if Malmo had a chance to kill Americans, he'd jump at it.
wcelliott
LOL. What are you talking about?. I love america, but your political leaders is criminals. And Its not only the us they have power in Europe to, its not ONLY the us leaders thats behind stuff.
And you cant disprove one thing i wrote because its all FACT. Nothing of it is a secret it is a fact backed up with evidence, its history open and admitted.
One more thing. Why is there no trusses in this pcitures where there "should" be trusses? http*://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/they-lied-about-trusses.htm
QUOTE
this point, I'm pretty sure that if Malmo had a chance to kill Americans, he'd jump at it.
LOL. What are you talking about?. I love america, but your political leaders is criminals. And Its not only the us they have power in Europe to, its not ONLY the us leaders thats behind stuff.
And you cant disprove one thing i wrote because its all FACT. Nothing of it is a secret it is a fact backed up with evidence, its history open and admitted.
One more thing. Why is there no trusses in this pcitures where there "should" be trusses? http*://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/they-lied-about-trusses.htm
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 5 2007, 03:40 PM)
Everything i said in the post is true. So what is false?? its history idiot.
Say one thing that aint true then, besides that there are no law to pay income tax???
And can you please show me and the rest of the world the law that says you must pay income tax??
. Stop the jokes. There are places you can win money if you show the law Virtually nothing you say is true Moe.
My runner up for your most moronic quote:
QUOTE
fema said that the bulding didnt have a core
Which is a fairly silly statement since they show a diagram of the core and label it: Core Columns resist 60% of building weight, Equally distributed.
FEMA - Chap 2 Building Perf Study, Fig 2-19
The law that allows the govt to impose an income tax is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Ame...es_Constitution
Now how much money can I win?
Arthur
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 5 2007, 03:50 PM)
Why is there no trusses in this pcitures where there "should" be trusses? http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/they...out-trusses.htm
Because those floors are too low in the building.
The first Truss floor is the 10th floor.
Those shots are of of floors that were below the 10th floor and thus were all BEAM framed floors.
Which of course is EASY to find out.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A pg 192
Which once again shows that a "TROOTHER" Site making the claim, as this one does, that "They lied about the trusses" is CLEARLY not interested in the TRUTH.
Arthur
Because those floors are too low in the building.
The first Truss floor is the 10th floor.
Those shots are of of floors that were below the 10th floor and thus were all BEAM framed floors.
Which of course is EASY to find out.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A pg 192
Which once again shows that a "TROOTHER" Site making the claim, as this one does, that "They lied about the trusses" is CLEARLY not interested in the TRUTH.
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 5 2007, 03:35 AM)
... I only felt it necessary to point out that just because a computer model of a fire says reaches a maximum temperature of X, that doesn't mean that there weren't places that got hotter than the model indicates.
... but that their numbers, no matter how well-crunched, are expected values and that the real values will tend to fall in a range about the predicted numbers.
Yes, it is sometimes called extreme events. Interestingly, extreme event distributions tend to have long tails, approximately log-normal.
Given that these are well known phenomena, computer models take these into account. Locally, the air quality guys care about two types of extreme events, stagnant air and extraordinary winds. (Well, they also care about wild-fires too.) These are externally imposed by the weather system, but with over 100 years of usable data for this region, and more from elsewhere, they can predict the number of low air quality days per year for localities in the region, statistically.
I'm sure that NIST understands much the same with regard to building fires, their main area of expertise.
... but that their numbers, no matter how well-crunched, are expected values and that the real values will tend to fall in a range about the predicted numbers.
Yes, it is sometimes called extreme events. Interestingly, extreme event distributions tend to have long tails, approximately log-normal.
Given that these are well known phenomena, computer models take these into account. Locally, the air quality guys care about two types of extreme events, stagnant air and extraordinary winds. (Well, they also care about wild-fires too.) These are externally imposed by the weather system, but with over 100 years of usable data for this region, and more from elsewhere, they can predict the number of low air quality days per year for localities in the region, statistically.
I'm sure that NIST understands much the same with regard to building fires, their main area of expertise.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 5 2007, 11:55 AM)
You have to wonder why DR. BAZANT would add his name to a paper that is so easy to disprove (for Gordon at least)?
Because GR's glance was only cursory. If he had bothered to re-consider Bazant & Verdure, he would note that they discuss the possibility of some crush-up right at the start. If he had bothered to consider the tilt, he would have discovered that the top block tilted into the dust cloud.
However, the sequence of visuals is interesting, in that it suggests that the tilt of WTC 1 continued past 8 arc-degrees, just that the top block can no longer be seen.
Because GR's glance was only cursory. If he had bothered to re-consider Bazant & Verdure, he would note that they discuss the possibility of some crush-up right at the start. If he had bothered to consider the tilt, he would have discovered that the top block tilted into the dust cloud.
However, the sequence of visuals is interesting, in that it suggests that the tilt of WTC 1 continued past 8 arc-degrees, just that the top block can no longer be seen.
QUOTE
Virtually nothing you say is true Moe.
Everything is true. Funny, you are saying things that are history arent true. the stuff is open and admitted, look it up, check the facts. You cant disprove one thing of it. Do you like to talk about things you know nothing about?. Check the facts and stop being a zombie.
No FEMA lied about the core in the beginning.
They substitute service core for core structure to help the reader think the buildings were flimsy:
"A rectangular service core with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16 escalators."
"The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south."
Deceptive illustrations imply that the towers had no core columns.
FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."
FEMA's Report Misrepresents the Tower's Construction
FEMA's report pretends the towers would instantly self-destruct if the floors fell away.
Key to this deception is hiding the strength of the core structures.
Core column cross-sections are shown about 1/3rd their actual dimensions.
(if they are shown at all).
Cross-bracing core beams are not shown.
Report lacks description of core structures.
Report's description of the towers fails to account for about 30 percent of the steel thought to have been used in their construction.
Report has only one photo giving size comparison of core column.
It fraudulently presents a much smaller column as a Twin Tower core column
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
Abundantly cross-braced
Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
Anchored directly to bedrock
Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The towers were designed to withstand 140 MPH winds.
In such cases the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads loads between perimeter walls and core. Otherwise, structural function of the floors was not in play.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Virtually nothing you say is true Moe. |
Everything is true. Funny, you are saying things that are history arent true. the stuff is open and admitted, look it up, check the facts. You cant disprove one thing of it. Do you like to talk about things you know nothing about?. Check the facts and stop being a zombie.
No FEMA lied about the core in the beginning.
They substitute service core for core structure to help the reader think the buildings were flimsy:
"A rectangular service core with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16 escalators."
"The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south."
Deceptive illustrations imply that the towers had no core columns.
FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."
FEMA's Report Misrepresents the Tower's Construction
FEMA's report pretends the towers would instantly self-destruct if the floors fell away.
Key to this deception is hiding the strength of the core structures.
Core column cross-sections are shown about 1/3rd their actual dimensions.
(if they are shown at all).
Cross-bracing core beams are not shown.
Report lacks description of core structures.
Report's description of the towers fails to account for about 30 percent of the steel thought to have been used in their construction.
Report has only one photo giving size comparison of core column.
It fraudulently presents a much smaller column as a Twin Tower core column
The Towers Had Robust Self-Supporting Core Structures
47 box columns a yard wide, steel 4" thick at base
Abundantly cross-braced
Capable of supporting the entire weight of building
Anchored directly to bedrock
Did not depend on floor diaphragms for support
The towers were designed to withstand 140 MPH winds.
In such cases the floor diaphragms would help transfer lateral loads loads between perimeter walls and core. Otherwise, structural function of the floors was not in play.
The law that allows the govt to impose an income tax is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:
lol. Thats not the law. Watch the movie America freedom to fascism with Arron russo, the movie will blow you away. And read the REAL Constitution (Where there are NO law for you to pay an income tax), Citizens rule book bill of right jury hand book. And this book about the banks is very good to, The coming battle the complete banking money power history of the U.S from 1776 to 1899.
America freedom to fascism: http*://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=Aaron+russo+america+freedom+to+facism
QUOTE
And read the REAL Constitution (Where there are NO law for you to pay an income tax),
As opposed to the one on-display in DC, which Malmo must assume is counterfeit.
So what are taxes like in Sweden, Malmo? Do you have to pay taxes there?
No FEMA did not lie about the core.
I gave the reference to the diagram of the core in the FEMA report to back it up.
The digaram CLEARLY indicates that the 47 columns of the core support 60% of the weight of the building and thus these 47 columns are MUCH MORE ROBUST than the 236 perimeter columns.
See: FEMA - Chap 2 Building Perf Study, Fig 2-19
Posting that same Troother BS will not disprove the fact that you are WRONG.
Oh and Moe, the AMENDMENTS are considered PART of the Constitution.
Arthur
I gave the reference to the diagram of the core in the FEMA report to back it up.
The digaram CLEARLY indicates that the 47 columns of the core support 60% of the weight of the building and thus these 47 columns are MUCH MORE ROBUST than the 236 perimeter columns.
See: FEMA - Chap 2 Building Perf Study, Fig 2-19
Posting that same Troother BS will not disprove the fact that you are WRONG.
Oh and Moe, the AMENDMENTS are considered PART of the Constitution.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 6 2007, 12:27 AM)
Posting that same Troother BS will not disprove the fact that you are WRONG.
Or:
Posting that same Troother BS proves that you are WRONG!
Or:
Posting that same Troother BS proves that you are WRONG!
Just for the record, Malmo, you figure the US staged the moon landing, too, right?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 6 2007, 01:25 AM)
Just for the record, Malmo, you figure the US staged the moon landing, too, right?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 4 2007, 08:38 PM)
I read the article, it was a pile of cr@p.
Your words are far from what is presented in this article. It centers on the CFR and 9/11. In the greater scheme, they are but a small facet of the hidden forces at work.
To reiterate, this IS a small, factual historical article, common knowledge to those who have studied in this area.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley5.htm
THE TRUE STORY OF 9-11
PART 2 of 2
By Dr. Stanley Monteith
June 3, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
My previous article (The True Story of 9/11, Part I) closed with Professor Carroll Quigley’s revelation that:
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. . . . I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. . . ."[1]
When I researched Colonel House's papers at Yale University, I found a copy of a letter that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent Colonel House on November 21, 1933, that contained the following statement:
"I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day. . . . J.P.M. (J.P. Morgan, ed) did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing. . . . The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson. . . . The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States - - only on a far bigger and broader basis."[2]
Who controls the U.S. government today? Members of David Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers (BdB), the Trilateral Commission (TC), the Club of Rome (CR), leading Masons, occult groups, and the Spiritual Hierarchy that energizes them. I call them the "Brotherhood of Darkness." They control both political parties, the presidency, the mass media, most major banks, most major corporations, and most of the wealth of the world.[3] If that is true, why hasn't someone told the American people? Because most journalists and most media pundits want to keep their jobs, and don't want to end up like Gary Webb, a Pulitzer prize winning columnist who exposed the CIA's involvement in the drug trade, who shot himself in the head twice to make certain he was dead.
Richard Harwood, the former editorial page editor of The Washington Post, tried to expose the CFR's control of our government in 1993 when he wrote:
"The president is a member. So is his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of housing and urban development, interior, health and human services and the chief White House public relations man, David Gergen, are members, along with the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate."[4]
The Washington Post article continued (October 30, 1993):
"In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc, Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, who is now President Clinton's ambassador at large in the Slavic world. The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katherine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership. The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly newsmagazines, network television executives and celebrities - Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example - and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland."[5]
Professor Ben Bagdikian's book, The New Media Monopoly, documents the fact that five mega corporations control 90% of the American media. The book is available from Radio Liberty. Lt. General William Odom headed the NSA, the intelligence organization that tracks our phone calls, our e-mails, our faxes, and our activities. The "Secrecy Agreement" he signed prevents him from revealing what is taking place, but his book, Fixing Intelligence (2003) noted:
". . . should the CIA be permitted to carry out assassinations? Should Army Counter- intelligence be involved in domestic surveillance of civilians? Should CIA clandestine officers be allowed to have cover as journalists?"[6]
If those things are taking place, what can we do? Members of the BOD control most media outlets, the police, the military, the government, the religious establishment, and most of the wealth of the world, but they fear the public will learn the truth about the events that took place on 9/11, so they have launched a massive media campaign to convince the public the "official version of 9/11" is correct. The September 11, 2006, issue of U.S. News and World Report published an article that laments:
"Even as conspiracy theories thrived abroad, they mostly fell on deaf ears in the first years after the attacks. But as the fifth anniversary nears, 9/11 Truth and its outlandish claims have become an online phenomenon - and are proving startlingly persuasive. In a July 2006 Scripps Howard poll, 16 percent of respondents said it was 'very likely' that federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen to justify war in the Middle East, while a further 20 percent said it was 'somewhat likely.'"[7]
The September 8, 2006 edition of World Affairs Brief states:
"Current polls put the numbers as high as 39% of Americans believe the US government was in some way complicit in the terror attack of 9/11. That's a very high number, surpassed only by the percentage of people that disbelieve the official government version about the assassination of JFK - 69%."[8]
Joel Skousen cited a recent article in the UK Daily Mail that states:
"The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an 'inside job,' according to a group of leading academics. Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday. But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated."[9]
Millions of Americans saw the C-Span broadcast of the "American Scholars Symposium," and learned about the 9/11 military exercises that simulated terrorist hijackings, and the fact that most of the fighter planes that were supposed to guard Washington, D.C. that morning were participating in military exercises in Canada.[10]
The U.S. News and World Report article continued:
"There are some divergent strands among the conspiracy theorists, but for most of them, the story has two major tenets: The World Trade Center towers and nearby Building 7, though struck by planes, were brought down by controlled demolitions, and the Pentagon was struck by a missile, not a plane."[11]
Why did the author suggest Building 7 was struck by a plane? No plane struck Building 7, and no reinforced steel building has ever collapsed because of a fire. You can watch the professionally controlled collapse of Building 7 at: [Read].
The Bush administration tried to block the effort to determine what happened because they claimed a lengthy investigation would "detract from the war on terrorism." When that argument failed to dissuade the public, the BOD organized two investigations: "The Joint Intelligence Committee" and the "9/11 Commission."
The Joint Intelligence Committee didn't try to determine why Building 7 collapsed because both Senator Bob Graham and Congressman Porter Goss, the co-chairmen of the committee, are members of the CFR. In addition, the Bush administration censored the report.[12]
The 9/11 Commission didn't determine why Building 7 collapsed because the Chairman, Thomas Kean, the vice-Chairman, Lee Hamilton, two members, Jamie Gorelick and John Lehman, and the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, are members of the CFR.[13] Former Senator Max Cleland was a member, but when it became obvious he wouldn't participate in the charade, he was replaced. Again, the Bush administration censored the report.[14] Since there are almost 300 million people living in the U.S., and there are only 4000 members of the CFR, do you honestly believe the CFR's control of both investigations was an accident?
I will continue my discussion of the 9/11 attack, and the coming war with Iran, in Part III of this article. If we can convince the American people they haven't been told the truth about the events that took place on 9/11, we may be able to prevent World War III, and preserve our nation.
The current situation reminds me of Martin Luther's immortal words,
"A mighty fortress is our God, A bulwark never failing; Our helper He, amid the flood Of mortal ills prevailing: For still our ancient foe Doth seek to work us woe; His craft and power are great, And, armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal."(14)
I believe we are engaged in a spiritual battle for the souls of men and the survival of Christian civilization. Our task is to do our best.
References:
1. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1966, p. 950.
2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: letter to Colonel House, Sterling Library, Yale University, November 21, 1933. Copy available from Radio Liberty.
3. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and THe New World Order
4. Richard Harwood, op. cit.
5. Ibid
6, William Odom, Fixing Intelligence, Yale University Press, 2003, front flap cover.
7. Will Sullivan, "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll," U.S. News & World Report, September 11, 2006, p. 39.
8. Joel Skousen, World Affairs Brief, Sept 8, 2006, p. 2.
9. Ibid and "American Scholars Symposium,"
10. Will Sullivan, op. cit.
11. Robert Gaylon Ross, Who's Who of the Elite, RIE, Spicewood, TX. CFR membership list.
12. Ibid
13. Thomas Kean et al, Without Precedent, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006, pp. 130-131.
14. Charles Johnson, One hundred and One famous hymns, Hallberg Publishing Co., Delaware, WI, 1983, p. 21.
© 2005 Stanley Monteith - All Rights Reserved
AND MAY THE LORD OUR GOD SHOW US HIS APPROVAL
AND MAKE OUR EFFORTS SUCCESSFUL
YES MAKE OUR EFFORTS SUCCESSFUL
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 4 2007, 11:19 PM)
He did on his website before the paper was submitted:
This makes it obvious the paper is not dealing with reality (and I am sure that doesn't bother DBB as long as it gets past the reviewers )!
Thanks, reasonwhy.
These pictures with Gordon's simple red and green lines are worth more than "a thousand words". What he had to say about it was icing on the cake.
REJOICE ALWAYS
This makes it obvious the paper is not dealing with reality (and I am sure that doesn't bother DBB as long as it gets past the reviewers )!
Thanks, reasonwhy.
These pictures with Gordon's simple red and green lines are worth more than "a thousand words". What he had to say about it was icing on the cake.
REJOICE ALWAYS
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 5 2007, 01:30 PM)
Truely moronic posts Moe.
My favorite:
There are NO law that you should pay income tax and yet you haft to, and the money goes to a privet bank.
ROTFLAMO
You keep posting BS and expecting us to comment on it.
Go play somewhere else.
Arthur
Keep laughing, but you are wrong.
Moe's point in the long post is that these dark forces are real.
He is right.
As to your "favorite", how can you be so out of touch with reality?
"America: Freedom to Fascism" - Director's Authorized Version
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
PRAY WITHOUT CEASING
My favorite:
QUOTE
There are NO law that you should pay income tax and yet you haft to, and the money goes to a privet bank.
ROTFLAMO
You keep posting BS and expecting us to comment on it.
Go play somewhere else.
Arthur
Keep laughing, but you are wrong.
Moe's point in the long post is that these dark forces are real.
He is right.
As to your "favorite", how can you be so out of touch with reality?
"America: Freedom to Fascism" - Director's Authorized Version
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
PRAY WITHOUT CEASING
QUOTE
the Club of Rome (CR), leading Masons, occult groups, and the Spiritual Hierarchy that energizes them. I call them the "Brotherhood of Darkness."
OK, who here feels my assessment of this article ("a pile of cr@p") was off-base?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 5 2007, 01:41 PM)
Folks, this is the stuff that the Al Qaida peddles to people like Malmo, trolling for gullible idiots to martyr themselves against the Evil Empire.
At this point, I'm pretty sure that if Malmo had a chance to kill Americans, he'd jump at it.
This last despicable sentence shows you are morally bankrupt.
And your talk about "peddling" -- that is the pot calling the kettle black.
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
At this point, I'm pretty sure that if Malmo had a chance to kill Americans, he'd jump at it.
This last despicable sentence shows you are morally bankrupt.
And your talk about "peddling" -- that is the pot calling the kettle black.
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 5 2007, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE
the Club of Rome (CR), leading Masons, occult groups, and the Spiritual Hierarchy that energizes them. I call them the "Brotherhood of Darkness."
OK, who here feels my assessment of this article ("a pile of cr@p") was off-base?
Answer his question if you have studied in this area; otherwise, you would be demonstrating a lack of knowledge based upon facts.
If you have studied and know the history, go ahead, answer him.
Tell the truth.
Oh, one other thing. He has not shown anything in the article to be untrue.
Keep that in mind.
FOR OUR STRUGGLE IS NOT AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD
BUT AGAINST THE RULERS
AGAINST THE POWERS
AGAINST THE WORLD FORCES OF THIS DARKNESS
AGAINST THE SPIRITUAL FORCES OF WICKEDNESS IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES
QUOTE
Moe's point in the long post is that these dark forces are real.
He is right.
He is right.
Or, he's just making the same mistake that all paranoid people make, assuming that people they hate, hate them back.
Corporations act in their self-interest because that's what the law requires of them. They put profit first because that's their primary obligation to their investors. If you invested money in a company that makes junk food and they suddenly decided to invest your money in tofu-burgers and you lost your shirt, you'd have good reason to complain. Corporations have charters and are legally obligated to make decisions based on the stockholders' best interests. This makes them seem heartless, but providing warm-fuzzies isn't their job, making profit is.
So corporations of all sorts make decisions to maximize their investors' profits.
And when you have lots of different companies all pursuing the same goals, it looks from the outside like they're acting in collusion. Conspiracy theorists make the assumption that every association is sinister, and that every meeting is part of a plot.
There's a plumbers' convention in Vegas every year, do you really think they're getting together to plot ways to make our toilets stop up?
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 6 2007, 03:15 AM)
Thanks, reasonwhy.
These pictures with Gordon's simple red and green lines are worth more than "a thousand words". What he had to say about it was icing on the cake.
REJOICE ALWAYS
and, despite the obvious truth shown by the pictures, the OCTs hang onto their fantasy "crush up/crush down' math like an elephant hanging over a cliff with his tail tied to a flower.
These pictures with Gordon's simple red and green lines are worth more than "a thousand words". What he had to say about it was icing on the cake.
REJOICE ALWAYS
and, despite the obvious truth shown by the pictures, the OCTs hang onto their fantasy "crush up/crush down' math like an elephant hanging over a cliff with his tail tied to a flower.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 5 2007, 10:06 PM)
Joel Skousen cited a recent article in the UK Daily Mail that states:
"The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an 'inside job,' according to a group of leading academics. Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday. But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated."[9]
9. Ibid and "American Scholars Symposium,"
So I tracked down a piece of this pile of manure that NotsoQuick dumped on the forum and of course found it was just more of the same tripe he has been trying to peddle.
Which made me FINALLY realize, no one is THAT STUPID.
So, what was his REAL motive?
Well, Duh.
Since no one can be THAT stupid as to continue to claim he sees a Fire Truck in that BMW's window, It has to be an ulterior motive.
(We already know he tries to use Jesus to help peddle his lies, so clearly he has few morals)
So sure enough:
What do we find when we search?
His source "The American Scholars Symposium" is but a link to Axex Jones site (who put on this BOGUS symposium) and enticements to BUY Alex's Book or movie.
So Quick, what's your CUT????
Do you get a bit for each site click or each book sale?
Tell us, how much do you make, dollar wise, off of each of the 3,000 9/11 victims?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Arthur
"The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an 'inside job,' according to a group of leading academics. Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries. The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday. But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated."[9]
9. Ibid and "American Scholars Symposium,"
So I tracked down a piece of this pile of manure that NotsoQuick dumped on the forum and of course found it was just more of the same tripe he has been trying to peddle.
Which made me FINALLY realize, no one is THAT STUPID.
So, what was his REAL motive?
Well, Duh.
Since no one can be THAT stupid as to continue to claim he sees a Fire Truck in that BMW's window, It has to be an ulterior motive.
(We already know he tries to use Jesus to help peddle his lies, so clearly he has few morals)
So sure enough:
What do we find when we search?
His source "The American Scholars Symposium" is but a link to Axex Jones site (who put on this BOGUS symposium) and enticements to BUY Alex's Book or movie.
So Quick, what's your CUT????
Do you get a bit for each site click or each book sale?
Tell us, how much do you make, dollar wise, off of each of the 3,000 9/11 victims?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 6 2007, 04:10 AM)
Tell us, how much do you make, dollar wise, off of each of the 3,000 9/11 victims?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Arthur
i see your not counting toxic fodder clean up and rescue workers in your body count.
how much do you make protecting the criminals that allowed honourable heroes to wade into slow toxic death so they could assist in the rapid cover-up of the truth?
lose the victim crap. this is bigger than people's feelings, and bigger than turning a profit. i thought you were a capitalist.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Arthur
i see your not counting toxic fodder clean up and rescue workers in your body count.
how much do you make protecting the criminals that allowed honourable heroes to wade into slow toxic death so they could assist in the rapid cover-up of the truth?
lose the victim crap. this is bigger than people's feelings, and bigger than turning a profit. i thought you were a capitalist.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 5 2007, 10:59 PM)
i see your not counting toxic fodder clean up and rescue workers in your body count.
how much do you make protecting the criminals that allowed honourable heroes to wade into slow toxic death so they could assist in the rapid cover-up of the truth?
You mean Guliani? Because he made the calls on WTC. I haven't heard of any victims from the Pentagon cleanup. *ooops, I guess it wasn't the federal government in your conspiracy afterall
how much do you make protecting the criminals that allowed honourable heroes to wade into slow toxic death so they could assist in the rapid cover-up of the truth?
You mean Guliani? Because he made the calls on WTC. I haven't heard of any victims from the Pentagon cleanup. *ooops, I guess it wasn't the federal government in your conspiracy afterall
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 5 2007, 09:02 PM)
Corporations act in their self-interest because that's what the law requires of them. They put profit first because that's their primary obligation to their investors. If you invested money in a company that makes junk food and they suddenly decided to invest your money in tofu-burgers and you lost your shirt, you'd have good reason to complain. Corporations have charters and are legally obligated to make decisions based on the stockholders' best interests. This makes them seem heartless, but providing warm-fuzzies isn't their job, making profit is.
So corporations of all sorts make decisions to maximize their investors' profits.
What you just wrote is right-on.
QUOTE
And when you have lots of different companies all pursuing the same goals, it looks from the outside like they're acting in collusion. Conspiracy theorists make the assumption that every association is sinister, and that every meeting is part of a plot.
There's a plumbers' convention in Vegas every year, do you really think they're getting together to plot ways to make our toilets stop up?
But now you've slipped a few gears with blanket statements and faulty theorizing.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD
AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD
AND THE WORD WAS GOD
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 5 2007, 09:10 PM)
So I tracked down a piece of this pile of manure that NotsoQuick dumped on the forum and of course found it was just more of the same tripe he has been trying to peddle.
Which made me FINALLY realize, no one is THAT STUPID.
So, what was his REAL motive?
Well, Duh.
Since no one can be THAT stupid as to continue to claim he sees a Fire Truck in that BMW's window, It has to be an ulterior motive.
(We already know he tries to use Jesus to help peddle his lies, so clearly he has few morals)
So sure enough:
What do we find when we search?
His source "The American Scholars Symposium" is but a link to Axex Jones site (who put on this BOGUS symposium) and enticements to BUY Alex's Book or movie.
So Quick, what's your CUT????
Do you get a bit for each site click or each book sale?
Tell us, how much do you make, dollar wise, off of each of the 3,000 9/11 victims?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Arthur
Give it a rest, doc. I work for a living, and I don't get any cuts from anyone or anywhere.
BTW, how much is the standard shill wage going for these days?
(You should know the answer to that. )
AND THIS IS THE WITNESS
THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US ETERNAL LIFE AND THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON
HE WHO HAS THE SON HAS THE LIFE
HE WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE THE LIFE
Which made me FINALLY realize, no one is THAT STUPID.
So, what was his REAL motive?
Well, Duh.
Since no one can be THAT stupid as to continue to claim he sees a Fire Truck in that BMW's window, It has to be an ulterior motive.
(We already know he tries to use Jesus to help peddle his lies, so clearly he has few morals)
So sure enough:
What do we find when we search?
His source "The American Scholars Symposium" is but a link to Axex Jones site (who put on this BOGUS symposium) and enticements to BUY Alex's Book or movie.
So Quick, what's your CUT????
Do you get a bit for each site click or each book sale?
Tell us, how much do you make, dollar wise, off of each of the 3,000 9/11 victims?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Arthur
Give it a rest, doc. I work for a living, and I don't get any cuts from anyone or anywhere.
BTW, how much is the standard shill wage going for these days?
(You should know the answer to that.
) AND THIS IS THE WITNESS
THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US ETERNAL LIFE AND THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON
HE WHO HAS THE SON HAS THE LIFE
HE WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE THE LIFE
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 6 2007, 05:33 AM)
You mean Guliani? Because he made the calls on WTC. I haven't heard of any victims from the Pentagon cleanup. *ooops, I guess it wasn't the federal government in your conspiracy afterall
no. i mean the EPA.
no. i mean the EPA.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 4 2007, 11:04 PM)
A web search reveals most references to progressive collapse involve one or more of four cases:
The WTC North Tower
The WTC South Tower
WTC Building 7
The Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (bombed in 1995).
Why does this phenomenon only show up in terrorist incidents?
Did you know that in the bombed Murray building there was literally one column left! The whole damned building was still standing on a single column! And we have to believe that all wtc7's columns snapped simultaneously because of fire? That will happen once in 10^88 times the duration of our universe.
The WTC North Tower
The WTC South Tower
WTC Building 7
The Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (bombed in 1995).
Why does this phenomenon only show up in terrorist incidents?
Did you know that in the bombed Murray building there was literally one column left! The whole damned building was still standing on a single column! And we have to believe that all wtc7's columns snapped simultaneously because of fire? That will happen once in 10^88 times the duration of our universe.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 6 2007, 08:55 AM)
Did you know that in the bombed Murray building there was literally one column left! The whole damned building was still standing on a single column! And we have to believe that all wtc7's columns snapped simultaneously because of fire? That will happen once in 10^88 times the duration of our universe.
"According to Ross Barney, another design concern was to avoid progressive collapse — the pancaking of floors falling on top of one another — a phenomenon most are familiar with since the World Trade Center attacks, but something that also occurred with the Murrah building, which essentially collapsed when a single column was lost."
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_e...ate_protecting/
"According to Ross Barney, another design concern was to avoid progressive collapse — the pancaking of floors falling on top of one another — a phenomenon most are familiar with since the World Trade Center attacks, but something that also occurred with the Murrah building, which essentially collapsed when a single column was lost."
http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_e...ate_protecting/
Pierre, that building was damaged by a terrorist, it didn't come down. After the explosion it was still standing. Controlled Demolition Inc had to bring it down which was very difficult because it was already damaged. There was only one column left in that building.
QUOTE
That will happen once in 10^88 times the duration of our universe.
A statement so blatently ridiculous that it hardly warrants a comment, but I'd be mildly interested in seeing your math.
wcelliott
No i dont think they staged the moon landing. But i am an open minded person. Funny how you start talking about stuff that hasnt to do with the things i wrote. You have probably never heard about any of it. And it is all admitted history. Maybe you watch fox news to much?. And if this things was true then that means you cant trust the government anymore and you cant have that in your life right? so you say to yourself that it isnt true. But the rest of the people in the world that is educated in history knows it. You know there are much more to 9-11 then the collapse of the building. Like Bush stopping the investigation into bin laden two months before 9-11 and threatened FBI agents to be arrested if they didnt stop the investigation.
QUOTE
Just for the record, Malmo, you figure the US staged the moon landing, too, right?
No i dont think they staged the moon landing. But i am an open minded person. Funny how you start talking about stuff that hasnt to do with the things i wrote. You have probably never heard about any of it
. And it is all admitted history. Maybe you watch fox news to much?. And if this things was true then that means you cant trust the government anymore and you cant have that in your life right? so you say to yourself that it isnt true. But the rest of the people in the world that is educated in history knows it. You know there are much more to 9-11 then the collapse of the building. Like Bush stopping the investigation into bin laden two months before 9-11 and threatened FBI agents to be arrested if they didnt stop the investigation. QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 6 2007, 03:55 AM)
Did you know that in the bombed Murray building there was literally one column left! The whole damned building was still standing on a single column! And we have to believe that all wtc7's columns snapped simultaneously because of fire? That will happen once in 10^88 times the duration of our universe.
Do you just make $hit up or what?
Yeah, I guess you do.
Why is it that "Troofers" have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH?
Do you enjoy just the process of spreading lies?
What satisfaction can you get when your lies are so easily repudiated?
http://911review.com/precedent/decade/imgs/murrahbldg.jpg
http://911review.com/precedent/decade/imgs/okcpat.jpg
Arthur
Do you just make $hit up or what?
Yeah, I guess you do.
Why is it that "Troofers" have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH?
Do you enjoy just the process of spreading lies?
What satisfaction can you get when your lies are so easily repudiated?
http://911review.com/precedent/decade/imgs/murrahbldg.jpg
http://911review.com/precedent/decade/imgs/okcpat.jpg
Arthur
talked with gordon ross about the trusses.
"Any theory has to be treated In the same way, look at the evidence and match what you see with a mechanism or process which gives cause and effect. As far as I can see the truss failure theory has little in the way of supportive evidence. There are some photos from NIST which they say show sagging floors. But whether they are or not is debatable. There effect is also highly debatable.
It is worthwhile trying to imagine the actual mechanism of collapse. You would need widespread and sustained fire over sufficient area to cause enough failures in the trusses to allow large floor areas to be affected. The concrete would then have to fail, to allow enough of the force due to the mass of the floors to act horizontally on the columns. The floor areas would then act against the outer core columns and mid-wall perimeter columns. The perimeter columns close to the corners would not be as affected by the load because of the differing connection method.
Observations of the collapse show that the core columns in rows 500, 600, 900 and 1000 fell in the early stages of collapse. These rows [and the perimeter columns] contained the columns which held the main floor load.
So the mechanism of sagging floors is faced with the task of causing failure in the perimeter columns, many of which would be only indirectly affected by the inward pulling force, and the largest core columns - those around the outside. This stretches credulity. It is hard to imagine any mechanism which would allow the truss failure to lead to inward pulling forces sufficient to cause failure of all of the perimeter columns and all of the outer core columns.
Then we look at all the other observations and pieces of evidence. The molten metal stream, the white rectangle, the flashes of light and changes in the colour and character of the smoke in a distinct and meaningful pattern. The major seats of damage also occuring in this pattern. The early movement of the antennae.
Nothing bolsters the argument and some of it contradicts the theory. That is why all the arguments in support of the truss theory are vague and generalised, such as
"if any one of the three failed, the structure as a whole would've failed."
"When they go, the structure goes."
The theory falls down in the detail of what actually happened. "When they go" ?? Where do they go and why do they go? And what is go?
I can see the point that is being made by the poster regarding the angle of the roof top, but I cannot agree with the validity of the premise. The roof angle would be altered by the realignment of loads after the aircraft impact damage, or by differential thermal expansion in columns on different sides of the tower. The argument also presupposes that the demolition was started immediately prior to the collapse was initiated. Weakening charges prior to full initiation would also have caused a change in the roof angle." Gordon
"Any theory has to be treated In the same way, look at the evidence and match what you see with a mechanism or process which gives cause and effect. As far as I can see the truss failure theory has little in the way of supportive evidence. There are some photos from NIST which they say show sagging floors. But whether they are or not is debatable. There effect is also highly debatable.
It is worthwhile trying to imagine the actual mechanism of collapse. You would need widespread and sustained fire over sufficient area to cause enough failures in the trusses to allow large floor areas to be affected. The concrete would then have to fail, to allow enough of the force due to the mass of the floors to act horizontally on the columns. The floor areas would then act against the outer core columns and mid-wall perimeter columns. The perimeter columns close to the corners would not be as affected by the load because of the differing connection method.
Observations of the collapse show that the core columns in rows 500, 600, 900 and 1000 fell in the early stages of collapse. These rows [and the perimeter columns] contained the columns which held the main floor load.
So the mechanism of sagging floors is faced with the task of causing failure in the perimeter columns, many of which would be only indirectly affected by the inward pulling force, and the largest core columns - those around the outside. This stretches credulity. It is hard to imagine any mechanism which would allow the truss failure to lead to inward pulling forces sufficient to cause failure of all of the perimeter columns and all of the outer core columns.
Then we look at all the other observations and pieces of evidence. The molten metal stream, the white rectangle, the flashes of light and changes in the colour and character of the smoke in a distinct and meaningful pattern. The major seats of damage also occuring in this pattern. The early movement of the antennae.
Nothing bolsters the argument and some of it contradicts the theory. That is why all the arguments in support of the truss theory are vague and generalised, such as
"if any one of the three failed, the structure as a whole would've failed."
"When they go, the structure goes."
The theory falls down in the detail of what actually happened. "When they go" ?? Where do they go and why do they go? And what is go?
I can see the point that is being made by the poster regarding the angle of the roof top, but I cannot agree with the validity of the premise. The roof angle would be altered by the realignment of loads after the aircraft impact damage, or by differential thermal expansion in columns on different sides of the tower. The argument also presupposes that the demolition was started immediately prior to the collapse was initiated. Weakening charges prior to full initiation would also have caused a change in the roof angle." Gordon
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 6 2007, 09:29 AM)
Pierre, that building was damaged by a terrorist, it didn't come down. After the explosion it was still standing. Controlled Demolition Inc had to bring it down which was very difficult because it was already damaged. There was only one column left in that building.
The quote by Pierre Normand says otherwise. You need to support your assertion with a reference. Otherwise, it looks like you remembered something just about the opposite of what occurred.
BTW, I heard a talk by physicist Terry Morrone on the collapses(now a member of stj911). He has done many calculations, and written a program re collapse (I have a hardcopy version). IIRC, he said that the group that had immediate access to the WTC rubble was the same group that had immediate access to the Murrah building wreck; further, that this was before even FEMA had access.
I've been meaning to question him about this, but he is not active in the forum (or even listed, as far as I have seen). Perhaps somebody has this info.
BTW, he was opposed by an architect (whose name escapes me). The architect had read NO papers on the collapses! Not a one!
The quote by Pierre Normand says otherwise. You need to support your assertion with a reference. Otherwise, it looks like you remembered something just about the opposite of what occurred.
BTW, I heard a talk by physicist Terry Morrone on the collapses(now a member of stj911). He has done many calculations, and written a program re collapse (I have a hardcopy version). IIRC, he said that the group that had immediate access to the WTC rubble was the same group that had immediate access to the Murrah building wreck; further, that this was before even FEMA had access.
I've been meaning to question him about this, but he is not active in the forum (or even listed, as far as I have seen). Perhaps somebody has this info.
BTW, he was opposed by an architect (whose name escapes me). The architect had read NO papers on the collapses! Not a one!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 6 2007, 11:04 AM)
QUOTE (einsteen+ Jun 6 2007, 03:55 AM)
Did you know that in the bombed Murray building there was literally one column left! The whole damned building was still standing on a single column! And we have to believe that all wtc7's columns snapped simultaneously because of fire? That will happen once in 10^88 times the duration of our universe.
Do you just make $hit up or what?
Yeah, I guess you do.
Why is it that "Troofers" have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH?
Do you enjoy just the process of spreading lies?
What satisfaction can you get when your lies are so easily repudiated?
These seem to post better.
http://www.prism-magazine.org/feb00/assets/oklahoma.jpg
http://www.brasscheck.com/OKBOMB/murrah.jpg
I was referring to this interview
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
looked like a genuine interview and no twoofer compiled stuff. Jowenko also mentioned that building, i.e. half of it was gone and it was still standing, had to be imploded afterwards. Here the Oklahoma part:
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?
SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: How did they describe it?
SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams.
A very informative interview btw
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
looked like a genuine interview and no twoofer compiled stuff. Jowenko also mentioned that building, i.e. half of it was gone and it was still standing, had to be imploded afterwards. Here the Oklahoma part:
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?
SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: How did they describe it?
SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams.
A very informative interview btw
The investigators of Oklahoma City and World Trade Center
Murrah Building Report authors:
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Original ASCE team (9/14/01):
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Other volunteers
Murrah Building Report authors:
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Original ASCE team (9/14/01):
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Other volunteers
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 6 2007, 12:34 PM)
The investigators of Oklahoma City and World Trade Center
Murrah Building Report authors:
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Original ASCE team (9/14/01):
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Other volunteers
Hello Malmoesoldier,
These guys really know their stuff, do they not?
Murrah Building Report authors:
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Original ASCE team (9/14/01):
Dr W. Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Other volunteers
Hello Malmoesoldier,
These guys really know their stuff, do they not?
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 6 2007, 01:00 PM)
Hello Malmoesoldier,
These guys really know their stuff, do they not?
Hello. I dont trust theme because FBI was behind the first wtc bombing and 9-11 was an inside job even if the building didnt collapse because of explosives.
These guys really know their stuff, do they not?
Hello. I dont trust theme because FBI was behind the first wtc bombing and 9-11 was an inside job even if the building didnt collapse because of explosives.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 6 2007, 07:18 AM)
I was referring to this interview
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
looked like a genuine interview and no twoofer compiled stuff. Jowenko also mentioned that building, i.e. half of it was gone and it was still standing, had to be imploded afterwards. Here the Oklahoma part:
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?
SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: How did they describe it?
SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams.
A very informative interview btw
einsteen, how could ANYONE look at that building and not KNOW that there were quite a few more columns than just ONE left.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...te/murrah_3.jpg
The fact is only 8 of the 33 columns were destroyed and all but one of them were in the same row.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...amagelayout.jpg
But its not like this person is an idiot, so how do you reconcile the statement with reality.
Simple.
SHE WASN'T THERE.
However two things she DID say are much more pertinent to this discussion.
However two things she DID say are much more pertinent to this discussion.
Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity.
And
Which simply means that you only need to get the building falling through two stories to have sufficient Kinetic energy to insure the building will collapse.
Arthur
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
looked like a genuine interview and no twoofer compiled stuff. Jowenko also mentioned that building, i.e. half of it was gone and it was still standing, had to be imploded afterwards. Here the Oklahoma part:
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?
SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: How did they describe it?
SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams.
A very informative interview btw
einsteen, how could ANYONE look at that building and not KNOW that there were quite a few more columns than just ONE left.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...te/murrah_3.jpg
The fact is only 8 of the 33 columns were destroyed and all but one of them were in the same row.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...amagelayout.jpg
But its not like this person is an idiot, so how do you reconcile the statement with reality.
Simple.
SHE WASN'T THERE.
QUOTE
I asked not to go on that job
However two things she DID say are much more pertinent to this discussion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I asked not to go on that job |
However two things she DID say are much more pertinent to this discussion.
Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity.
And
QUOTE
We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way.
Which simply means that you only need to get the building falling through two stories to have sufficient Kinetic energy to insure the building will collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (Gordon Ross (via Moe)+)
This stretches credulity. It is hard to imagine any mechanism which would allow the truss failure to lead to inward pulling forces sufficient to cause failure of all of the perimeter columns and all of the outer core columns.
Except once again Gordon doesn't get it.
Hence his admission that HE can't imagine how the mechanism works.
Not that the mechanism is not there.
He is focused on the inward pulling forces from the sagging trusses, but they were relatively minor, ~ 5kip. These small pull in forces were nowhere near enough to bend those massive columns. But they DID direct the way the columns bowed (inward vs outward) and the fact that the columns sagged meant and created a pull in force meant that the columns lost their horizontal bracing. Since they sagged on multiple floors this meant you had columns that were 36 ft long (or longer) supporting increased load with NO LATERAL SUPPORT.
Ultimately though, the FORCE that bowed in the perimeter columns was the increased LOAD caused by the load redistribution from the impact damage and tilt of the towers and the plastic creep (shortening) of the core columns.
As Grumpy would probably say, REALITY is NOT constrained by Gordon's lack of imagination.
Arthur
Except once again Gordon doesn't get it.
Hence his admission that HE can't imagine how the mechanism works.
Not that the mechanism is not there.
He is focused on the inward pulling forces from the sagging trusses, but they were relatively minor, ~ 5kip. These small pull in forces were nowhere near enough to bend those massive columns. But they DID direct the way the columns bowed (inward vs outward) and the fact that the columns sagged meant and created a pull in force meant that the columns lost their horizontal bracing. Since they sagged on multiple floors this meant you had columns that were 36 ft long (or longer) supporting increased load with NO LATERAL SUPPORT.
Ultimately though, the FORCE that bowed in the perimeter columns was the increased LOAD caused by the load redistribution from the impact damage and tilt of the towers and the plastic creep (shortening) of the core columns.
As Grumpy would probably say, REALITY is NOT constrained by Gordon's lack of imagination.
Arthur
Arthur, I'm glad that we agree that a building just can't come down if a few columns are damaged.
The first two stories (as she said, I posted that 20 pages before) also shows that if you have enough kinetic energy you can let the building come down, but you first have to have that kinetic energy.
An other interesting thing is that in normal CDs the whole building will be emptied because otherwise your E1s for the higher stories are to high and the collapse will not be complete.
What I'm wondering is if (I hope that NEU-FONZE and DBB are also reading, maybe they can explain) the requirement for a bottom-up collapse is
nmgh > n E or
nmgh > E
If the technique really requires that (depending on the building, one for a weak building, more for a stronger building) you have to drop it two stories for a total collapse then it might be that the first is true. In that case when the drop is insufficient energy will be balanced because the E1s count up. Remember the models are 1d models and two stories are not "weaker" than one because of the Euler buckling formula which doesn't work in 1d.
The first two stories (as she said, I posted that 20 pages before) also shows that if you have enough kinetic energy you can let the building come down, but you first have to have that kinetic energy.
An other interesting thing is that in normal CDs the whole building will be emptied because otherwise your E1s for the higher stories are to high and the collapse will not be complete.
What I'm wondering is if (I hope that NEU-FONZE and DBB are also reading, maybe they can explain) the requirement for a bottom-up collapse is
nmgh > n E or
nmgh > E
If the technique really requires that (depending on the building, one for a weak building, more for a stronger building) you have to drop it two stories for a total collapse then it might be that the first is true. In that case when the drop is insufficient energy will be balanced because the E1s count up. Remember the models are 1d models and two stories are not "weaker" than one because of the Euler buckling formula which doesn't work in 1d.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 6 2007, 06:05 AM)
QUOTE (Gordon Ross (via Moe)+)
This stretches credulity. It is hard to imagine any mechanism which would allow the truss failure to lead to inward pulling forces sufficient to cause failure of all of the perimeter columns and all of the outer core columns.
Except once again Gordon doesn't get it.
Hence his admission that HE can't imagine how the mechanism works.
Not that the mechanism is not there.
He is focused on the inward pulling forces from the sagging trusses, but they were relatively minor, ~ 5kip. These small pull in forces were nowhere near enough to bend those massive columns. But they DID direct the way the columns bowed (inward vs outward) and the fact that the columns sagged meant and created a pull in force meant that the columns lost their horizontal bracing. Since they sagged on multiple floors this meant you had columns that were 36 ft long (or longer) supporting increased load with NO LATERAL SUPPORT.
Ultimately though, the FORCE that bowed in the perimeter columns was the increased LOAD caused by the load redistribution from the impact damage and tilt of the towers and the plastic creep (shortening) of the core columns.
As Grumpy would probably say, REALITY is NOT constrained by Gordon's lack of imagination.
Arthur
And of course NIST could not simulate this in the floor assembly model (the walls bowed out). So NIST makes a bunch of excuses ( I am sure Arthurs can list them), then takes a section of the wall and starts applying lateral forces until it resemble the photos ( the NIST scientific method).
"Go" means "fail". When one truss fails, its load is either transferred to adjacent trusses, increasing their net loads towards or beyond their failure point, or the load isn't taken up and the now partially unsupported weight (the load that couldn't be taken up by the remaining trusses) goes into accelerating the upper load. It starts to fall, not at 1g, but at whatever fraction of its weight isn't being supported times 1g.
So at the initial point of collapse, there will be one truss failing, and the load that that one failed truss was carrying before it fails gets transferred to the other trusses, but they're already at their limit, so part of that load doesn't get picked up, and the upper section starts accelerating downward at maybe 0.001g, further compressing the remaining supporting members, driving them out of their ideal alignment (e.g., vertical members bowing out or in), and the remaining structure gets slightly weaker due to the new less-optimal support geometry, and so less load *can* be carried, and another support member fails, maybe just a bolt on a bracket snaps from shear forces it wasn't designed for, and now the upper section starts accelerating downwards at 0.002g, still too small to measure on videos of the collapse...
Note, that when people are talking about how long it took the building to collapse, at this point in the process, the building *is* collapsing, just at a rate too small to notice directly, so nobody's stopwatch is started yet. Still, even at 0.002g, it's coming down.
You can't measure the 0.002g directly through looking at the descent speed from the video, but if you measure the plumb-angle of the upper section, you can infer the descent through trigonometry, one side acts like a hinge with the more-damaged side buckling under the load. I'd measure the angle from the vertical, not the horizontal angle of the roof-line, myself, but they should be about the same.
So the same process continues, with the g's going from 0.002g to 0.010g to 0.02g to 0.1g, and someplace in there, people start their stopwatches, because as more and more structural elements fail, their loads are being passed along to other structural elements that are already close to failing themselves. When each element fails, it goes "BANG!", incidentally. And when people on the ground hear this "BANG!", they feel it first because the speed of sound through steel is 20,000fps, compared to 1000fps through air (round numbers), so the impulse goes through the remaining structure to ground level faster than the sound goes through the air.
These failures accelerate as they go, excuse me, "fail", because of the "straw breaking the camel's back" concept, each failed member contributes to the failures of the rest. At some point, the structural failures are happening so fast that it appears to be a continuum, and down it goes.
I've already explained the rest of this before, but here's a quick physics problem that if you understand it, the rest of the collapse is easy to understand.
If a weight, say 100pounds, falls ten feet at one g, and lands on a two-foot thick layer of packing peanuts which decelerates the weight uniformly (constant deceleration) over that two-foot thick layer, how much force had to be exerted to slow the weight to zero over those two feet? The answer is 600pounds. It has to decelerate at 5gs, net, with one g constant additional to the deceleration due to gravity. If that weight was stopped by one foot of packing peanuts, the force would be 1100pounds. You have, int the WTC case, office furniture instead of packing peanuts, and it's distributed randomly throughout the floor space, so it's like different thicknesses of packing peanuts trying to cushion the fall of the floor(s) overhead. That makes for nonuniform deceleration of the falling floors and nonuniform loading on the floor below, but all sustaining loads far in excess of their design-to loading.
And when design-to numbers are exceeded, structures fail.
Gordon wants to consider the strengths of the frames and the floors as one monolithic entity, he is wrong. The building is only as strong as it's weakest structure(as is a chain). When this weakest "link" fails, that is the limit of strain energy that can be transfered to the rest of the frame. That weakest link was the floor connections.
Grumpy
In particular the exterior truss connections. It seems Mr. Ross persists on assuming the collisions were head on and not oblique. While there may be some case to be made for this happening in the core due to its dimensions, there is no way this was happening to the exterior columns. Any oblique collisions on the exterior columns would first sever the closest truss connections, then the bolt connections to the next column panel or "tree". Why he insists otherwise is beyond me. The only conclusion I can make is that in Mr. Ross' experience when a book is dropped on his HEAD he gets sore FEET.
His point was that the safety factor was 2x, not 6x, and certainly not 20x (2000%) as Malmo glibly asserted.
I haven't read what the safety factor was, but my guess would be that it'd be closer to 2x than 6x, and that 20x is as ridiculous as the 10^88 number tossed out earlier regarding WTC7.
I don't see how the Troothers' can claim any sort of deep understanding of anything having to do with structural integrity when they throw around these wild numbers, seemingly with a straight face.
The WTC towers didn't collapse suddenly any more than a person dies quickly of heart disease. A guy may have *looked* fine right up the time he had a fatal hear attack, but the *problem* started with his first cheeseburger, if you follow the analogy.
In the WTC collapses, the upper parts of each tower had significant lean to them prior to what people on both sides are wrongly saying is the "start" of the collapse. When I see people debating whether the collapse took 10 seconds or 12 or whatever, they're both making the same fundamental error - The collapses started when the upper sections started to lean. Unless someone can collect that angle-rate data from the video footage of the event and show me where the angle-rate went to zero, post-impact, I'm taking the position that the duration of the collapse began when the towers started leaning and ended when the last chunk of concrete hit the street. It just sped up in the middle, as one should expect.
Anyone who wants to debate whether it fell in ten seconds or twelve needs to be more clear about what the threshold value he's using to start that stopwatch, because as long as the top is tilting over, the Cg of the top is descending at a non-zero rate.
His point was that the safety factor was 2x, not 6x, and certainly not 20x (2000%) as Malmo glibly asserted.
I haven't read what the safety factor was, but my guess would be that it'd be closer to 2x than 6x, and that 20x is as ridiculous as the 10^88 number tossed out earlier regarding WTC7.
Anyone who wants to debate whether it fell in ten seconds or twelve needs to be more clear about what the threshold value he's using to start that stopwatch, because as long as the top is tilting over, the Cg of the top is descending at a non-zero rate.
1) Yeah, but I see what Newton is saying. It is possible that as a component the tree could probably hold 2000% of its design load. This of course means that as a component it sustain a load of 2000000 Kg but only to designed to sustain 10000 Kg. This makes sense because the tree is not stand alone and it's design load would also incorporate the connection between itself and the tree above and below it.
2) The last i read of the safety factor it was 1.67 for the core and 1.7 for the exterior. This would put the building on the whole right around the same wouldn't it?
3) This is a good point I have never really explored. Your reasoning is sound. As a physics person I always refer to this as "the point of equilibrium", beyond which it global collapse
His point was that the safety factor was 2x, not 6x, and certainly not 20x (2000%) as Malmo glibly asserted.
it was not a glib assertion. it was published in "The Engineering Record". 2000% overengineering of the perimeter columns.
there is no way the perimeter was 2X. that is ludicrous. just look at the thing. 208 columns spaced three ft. apart. it could have held up with less than half of those. less than a third, and probably less than a sixth.
the core only had 47 columns, and it was refered to as a 'supercore'. so, if the supercore was only 2X(which is ridiculous), that means it could have stood with only 24 columns.
seeing as the core supposedly took 60% of the load, that means the other 40% is on the perimeter, and so, if 23 columns can hold up the core, than 24 columns could hold up the perimeter.
lets see, 208/24 is a safety factor of around 10.
of course, that assumes all columns equal, which was not the case.
in reality, the core could probably have stood with less than half of the columns, as a factor of 2 for such a large and 'groundbreaking' design would be unthinkable to the designers and owners.
2000% is not that ridiculous.
200% is.
of course, that assumes all columns equal, which was not the case.
It also assumes that the remaining columns are all equally-spaced. They weren't. Remember that huge gash that the planes left in the side? The load that was expected to be supported by all those missing members was concentrated at the edges of the gash.
Also, the strength figure cited for the wall columns didn't assume they'd be free-standing without horizontal supports holding everything in perfect alignment. They'll go unstable without that horizontal bracing provided by the floor trusses. (Like they did when they bowed out/in.)
Except once again Gordon doesn't get it.
Hence his admission that HE can't imagine how the mechanism works.
Not that the mechanism is not there.
He is focused on the inward pulling forces from the sagging trusses, but they were relatively minor, ~ 5kip. These small pull in forces were nowhere near enough to bend those massive columns. But they DID direct the way the columns bowed (inward vs outward) and the fact that the columns sagged meant and created a pull in force meant that the columns lost their horizontal bracing. Since they sagged on multiple floors this meant you had columns that were 36 ft long (or longer) supporting increased load with NO LATERAL SUPPORT.
Ultimately though, the FORCE that bowed in the perimeter columns was the increased LOAD caused by the load redistribution from the impact damage and tilt of the towers and the plastic creep (shortening) of the core columns.
As Grumpy would probably say, REALITY is NOT constrained by Gordon's lack of imagination.
Arthur
And of course NIST could not simulate this in the floor assembly model (the walls bowed out). So NIST makes a bunch of excuses ( I am sure Arthurs can list them), then takes a section of the wall and starts applying lateral forces until it resemble the photos ( the NIST scientific method).
QUOTE
"if any one of the three failed, the structure as a whole would've failed."
"When they go, the structure goes."
The theory falls down in the detail of what actually happened. "When they go" ?? Where do they go and why do they go? And what is go?
"When they go, the structure goes."
The theory falls down in the detail of what actually happened. "When they go" ?? Where do they go and why do they go? And what is go?
"Go" means "fail". When one truss fails, its load is either transferred to adjacent trusses, increasing their net loads towards or beyond their failure point, or the load isn't taken up and the now partially unsupported weight (the load that couldn't be taken up by the remaining trusses) goes into accelerating the upper load. It starts to fall, not at 1g, but at whatever fraction of its weight isn't being supported times 1g.
So at the initial point of collapse, there will be one truss failing, and the load that that one failed truss was carrying before it fails gets transferred to the other trusses, but they're already at their limit, so part of that load doesn't get picked up, and the upper section starts accelerating downward at maybe 0.001g, further compressing the remaining supporting members, driving them out of their ideal alignment (e.g., vertical members bowing out or in), and the remaining structure gets slightly weaker due to the new less-optimal support geometry, and so less load *can* be carried, and another support member fails, maybe just a bolt on a bracket snaps from shear forces it wasn't designed for, and now the upper section starts accelerating downwards at 0.002g, still too small to measure on videos of the collapse...
Note, that when people are talking about how long it took the building to collapse, at this point in the process, the building *is* collapsing, just at a rate too small to notice directly, so nobody's stopwatch is started yet. Still, even at 0.002g, it's coming down.
You can't measure the 0.002g directly through looking at the descent speed from the video, but if you measure the plumb-angle of the upper section, you can infer the descent through trigonometry, one side acts like a hinge with the more-damaged side buckling under the load. I'd measure the angle from the vertical, not the horizontal angle of the roof-line, myself, but they should be about the same.
So the same process continues, with the g's going from 0.002g to 0.010g to 0.02g to 0.1g, and someplace in there, people start their stopwatches, because as more and more structural elements fail, their loads are being passed along to other structural elements that are already close to failing themselves. When each element fails, it goes "BANG!", incidentally. And when people on the ground hear this "BANG!", they feel it first because the speed of sound through steel is 20,000fps, compared to 1000fps through air (round numbers), so the impulse goes through the remaining structure to ground level faster than the sound goes through the air.
These failures accelerate as they go, excuse me, "fail", because of the "straw breaking the camel's back" concept, each failed member contributes to the failures of the rest. At some point, the structural failures are happening so fast that it appears to be a continuum, and down it goes.
I've already explained the rest of this before, but here's a quick physics problem that if you understand it, the rest of the collapse is easy to understand.
If a weight, say 100pounds, falls ten feet at one g, and lands on a two-foot thick layer of packing peanuts which decelerates the weight uniformly (constant deceleration) over that two-foot thick layer, how much force had to be exerted to slow the weight to zero over those two feet? The answer is 600pounds. It has to decelerate at 5gs, net, with one g constant additional to the deceleration due to gravity. If that weight was stopped by one foot of packing peanuts, the force would be 1100pounds. You have, int the WTC case, office furniture instead of packing peanuts, and it's distributed randomly throughout the floor space, so it's like different thicknesses of packing peanuts trying to cushion the fall of the floor(s) overhead. That makes for nonuniform deceleration of the falling floors and nonuniform loading on the floor below, but all sustaining loads far in excess of their design-to loading.
And when design-to numbers are exceeded, structures fail.
Malmoesoldier
Are you aware that Ross is Craig T. Furlong's co-disinformationist in his now thoroughly trashed paper claiming explosions BEFORE plane impacts???
All you have done is provide another instance where Gordon just "doesn't get it". It seems that anywhere you see Gordon's or Furlong's name on something, it will be nothing but lies, half truths and misunderstanding and misuse of even the simplest physical concept.(and in Furlong's case, paranoid delusions of firetrucks and Lying-for-Jesus rants)
Gordon wants to consider the strengths of the frames and the floors as one monolithic entity, he is wrong. The building is only as strong as it's weakest structure(as is a chain). When this weakest "link" fails, that is the limit of strain energy that can be transfered to the rest of the frame. That weakest link was the floor connections.
Neither of these two "gentlemen" has a bit of academic or scientific credibility left, they sold it all to profit from gullible, know-nothing clowns of the "troother" sort(just as Jones, Woods, et al have). They will never get a dime from me for their snake oil and the next time those of this ilk visit Ground Zero to spew their hateful garbage, I hope it is during a teamsters or firefighters convention.
Grumpy
QUOTE
talked with gordon ross about the trusses.
Are you aware that Ross is Craig T. Furlong's co-disinformationist in his now thoroughly trashed paper claiming explosions BEFORE plane impacts???
All you have done is provide another instance where Gordon just "doesn't get it". It seems that anywhere you see Gordon's or Furlong's name on something, it will be nothing but lies, half truths and misunderstanding and misuse of even the simplest physical concept.(and in Furlong's case, paranoid delusions of firetrucks and Lying-for-Jesus rants)
Gordon wants to consider the strengths of the frames and the floors as one monolithic entity, he is wrong. The building is only as strong as it's weakest structure(as is a chain). When this weakest "link" fails, that is the limit of strain energy that can be transfered to the rest of the frame. That weakest link was the floor connections.
Neither of these two "gentlemen" has a bit of academic or scientific credibility left, they sold it all to profit from gullible, know-nothing clowns of the "troother" sort(just as Jones, Woods, et al have). They will never get a dime from me for their snake oil and the next time those of this ilk visit Ground Zero to spew their hateful garbage, I hope it is during a teamsters or firefighters convention.
Grumpy
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 6 2007, 12:18 PM)
I was referring to this interview
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
looked like a genuine interview and no twoofer compiled stuff. Jowenko also mentioned that building, i.e. half of it was gone and it was still standing, had to be imploded afterwards. Here the Oklahoma part:
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?
SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: How did they describe it?
SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams.
A very informative interview btw
Very interesting.
BTW, physicist Morrone also took some structural classes "back in the day", and recalls margins of safety of about 6 being typical.
So, from adoucette's diagram, I can't believe that a single column could support the whole building without at least a partial collapse. Maybe if there were only 5 or 6 of them, total.
Perhaps Jowenko meant all columns had been cut horizontally, but were resting on each other? I find that also unlikely....
Why don't you ask him?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
looked like a genuine interview and no twoofer compiled stuff. Jowenko also mentioned that building, i.e. half of it was gone and it was still standing, had to be imploded afterwards. Here the Oklahoma part:
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?
SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: How did they describe it?
SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams.
A very informative interview btw
Very interesting.
BTW, physicist Morrone also took some structural classes "back in the day", and recalls margins of safety of about 6 being typical.
So, from adoucette's diagram, I can't believe that a single column could support the whole building without at least a partial collapse. Maybe if there were only 5 or 6 of them, total.
Perhaps Jowenko meant all columns had been cut horizontally, but were resting on each other? I find that also unlikely....
Why don't you ask him?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 6 2007, 09:33 AM)
And of course NIST could not simulate this in the floor assembly model (the walls bowed out). So NIST makes a bunch of excuses ( I am sure Arthurs can list them), then takes a section of the wall and starts applying lateral forces until it resemble the photos ( the NIST scientific method).
Correct.
NIST explains (though Reasonwhy ignores the SCIENTIFIC explanation) why the ISOLATED FLOOR models would not capture ALL the behavior of the floors.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C 5.5.18
NIST explains, they use OBSERVATION where they can to IMPROVE the models behavior and match what WAS OBSERVED.
As they said in NIST NCSTAR 1-6d E 2.5:
So, once again Reasonwhy, are you trying to claim that the walls WEREN'T BOWED IN when and where NIST says they were?
If so provide some evidence to support this claim.
Are you trying to claim there is some other mechanism for them to have bowed in?
If so provide some alternative explanation for this slow bowing in of the exterior walls, on the fire/impact floors.
We're waiting.
Arthur
Correct.
NIST explains (though Reasonwhy ignores the SCIENTIFIC explanation) why the ISOLATED FLOOR models would not capture ALL the behavior of the floors.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C 5.5.18
NIST explains, they use OBSERVATION where they can to IMPROVE the models behavior and match what WAS OBSERVED.
As they said in NIST NCSTAR 1-6d E 2.5:
QUOTE
The magnitude of the pull in forces were determined by trial and error to match the observed inward bowing of the exterior walls.
So, once again Reasonwhy, are you trying to claim that the walls WEREN'T BOWED IN when and where NIST says they were?
If so provide some evidence to support this claim.
Are you trying to claim there is some other mechanism for them to have bowed in?
If so provide some alternative explanation for this slow bowing in of the exterior walls, on the fire/impact floors.
We're waiting.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 6 2007, 04:10 PM)
Gordon wants to consider the strengths of the frames and the floors as one monolithic entity, he is wrong. The building is only as strong as it's weakest structure(as is a chain). When this weakest "link" fails, that is the limit of strain energy that can be transfered to the rest of the frame. That weakest link was the floor connections.
Grumpy
In particular the exterior truss connections. It seems Mr. Ross persists on assuming the collisions were head on and not oblique. While there may be some case to be made for this happening in the core due to its dimensions, there is no way this was happening to the exterior columns. Any oblique collisions on the exterior columns would first sever the closest truss connections, then the bolt connections to the next column panel or "tree". Why he insists otherwise is beyond me. The only conclusion I can make is that in Mr. Ross' experience when a book is dropped on his HEAD he gets sore FEET.
Metamars, one column seems indeed unlikely, maybe her father means that the building was such a mess that at that stage it is in fact the initiating column. And Jowenko I spent some time to translate that interview and a couple of months ago I spoke someone who wanted to visit him but I've never heard from it, but it doesn't also matter, if one individual is willing to speak about it and confirms then it is ridiculed or totally ignored or the person is a m0ron because he only saw a video (this is not true but that's what 'they' pick out), although there are more experts. I wish NIST the best luck with their final article, what would be a nice title of that peer reviewed paper ?
"Dynamical fluctuations in potential energy leading to a direct collapse initiation without the use of mass movement"
"Dynamical fluctuations in potential energy leading to a direct collapse initiation without the use of mass movement"
metamars
And back in the day that was true. The WTC buildings, however used about 2 times(200%) calculated needed strength(misprinted or misunderstood as 2000% in at least one case) in this optimized design. 2 times maximum live loads on the floors, 2 times maximum load on the core and frame. Some computer designed structures today may be using 1.5 or less. NASA has been using safety factors of less than one since Apollo or even earlier. In Aerospace in general low margins of excess strength(and thus weight).
And, no, the building was NOT designed from the beginning to withstand an aircraft collision, though it stood for ~ hour(in each case) after it was hit. It is even possible the building would have collapsed on it's own (especially 2) even without a fire. Tilting of the upper block on 2 began almost immediately, indicating creep, load transfer, etc. leading to failure and collapse.
Grumpy
QUOTE
BTW, physicist Morrone also took some structural classes "back in the day", and recalls margins of safety of about 6 being typical.
And back in the day that was true. The WTC buildings, however used about 2 times(200%) calculated needed strength(misprinted or misunderstood as 2000% in at least one case) in this optimized design. 2 times maximum live loads on the floors, 2 times maximum load on the core and frame. Some computer designed structures today may be using 1.5 or less. NASA has been using safety factors of less than one since Apollo or even earlier. In Aerospace in general low margins of excess strength(and thus weight).
And, no, the building was NOT designed from the beginning to withstand an aircraft collision, though it stood for ~ hour(in each case) after it was hit. It is even possible the building would have collapsed on it's own (especially 2) even without a fire. Tilting of the upper block on 2 began almost immediately, indicating creep, load transfer, etc. leading to failure and collapse.
Grumpy
"Let them eat cake."
We all recognize this quote, right? Marie Antoinette said it when she heard that the French people had no bread to eat.
What resulted was the French Revolution.
One problem, she never really said it.
It was a conjured lie, spread to anger the French populace to the point where they were willing to overthrow the French monarchy.
We're seeing this sort of thing on a daily basis coming from "troothers", who have the same intent, spreading lies to anger the populace into dissent against the war on terror, and it's the terrorist-sympathizers who are behind this effort, leading the gullible "NWO-idiots" (and anyone else who'll follow).
The clue to this involvement was the "No law allowing income taxes" statement made a few pages back. This is a ploy aimed at creating dissent among the low-income working class, something that's usually associated with the White Supremist's movement, where they're complaining about how much of their taxes goes to welfare, which they commonly accept the lie that welfare goes mainly to blacks (most goes to whites).
Let's not mistake the motivations behind these "troothers" continuous assault on reason. They don't care about the real truth, they're only interested in misleading Americans into thinking that the attacks that started the war on terror weren't caused by the terrorists.
We all recognize this quote, right? Marie Antoinette said it when she heard that the French people had no bread to eat.
What resulted was the French Revolution.
One problem, she never really said it.
It was a conjured lie, spread to anger the French populace to the point where they were willing to overthrow the French monarchy.
We're seeing this sort of thing on a daily basis coming from "troothers", who have the same intent, spreading lies to anger the populace into dissent against the war on terror, and it's the terrorist-sympathizers who are behind this effort, leading the gullible "NWO-idiots" (and anyone else who'll follow).
The clue to this involvement was the "No law allowing income taxes" statement made a few pages back. This is a ploy aimed at creating dissent among the low-income working class, something that's usually associated with the White Supremist's movement, where they're complaining about how much of their taxes goes to welfare, which they commonly accept the lie that welfare goes mainly to blacks (most goes to whites).
Let's not mistake the motivations behind these "troothers" continuous assault on reason. They don't care about the real truth, they're only interested in misleading Americans into thinking that the attacks that started the war on terror weren't caused by the terrorists.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 6 2007, 06:46 PM)
metamars
And back in the day that was true. The WTC buildings, however used about 2 times(200%) calculated needed strength(misprinted or misunderstood as 2000% in at least one case) in this optimized design.
Grumpy
it was not misprinted or misunderstood. it was published in the engineering record, and refers to the perimeter columns.
planes hit towers. CFR criminals use explosives to knock buildings down. it really is that simple.
newton
And back in the day that was true. The WTC buildings, however used about 2 times(200%) calculated needed strength(misprinted or misunderstood as 2000% in at least one case) in this optimized design.
Grumpy
it was not misprinted or misunderstood. it was published in the engineering record, and refers to the perimeter columns.
planes hit towers. CFR criminals use explosives to knock buildings down. it really is that simple.
newton
QUOTE (newton+Jun 6 2007, 07:52 PM)
it was not misprinted or misunderstood. it was published in the engineering record, and refers to the perimeter columns.
planes hit towers. CFR criminals use explosives to knock buildings down. it really is that simple.
newton
A safety factor of 6 in the perimeter columns? This is probably the most outrageous claim i have ever heard in regards to the WTC's construction.
planes hit towers. CFR criminals use explosives to knock buildings down. it really is that simple.
newton
A safety factor of 6 in the perimeter columns? This is probably the most outrageous claim i have ever heard in regards to the WTC's construction.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 6 2007, 08:09 PM)
A safety factor of 6 in the perimeter columns? This is probably the most outrageous claim i have ever heard in regards to the WTC's construction.
no, a factor of 20. that should get you rolling on the floor laughing your *** off.
however, that is the figure published in the engineering record, ....2000% redundancy in the perimeter.
looking at how many columns are there, and how closely spaced they are, and comparing that to other buildings, the 2000% figure does not seem ridiculous at all, to me.
of course, people make mistakes. perhaps, it was really only 1000%, or 500%(5 is the factor i hear engineers often go for when designing).
i'll ask wiki....
no, a factor of 20. that should get you rolling on the floor laughing your *** off.
however, that is the figure published in the engineering record, ....2000% redundancy in the perimeter.
looking at how many columns are there, and how closely spaced they are, and comparing that to other buildings, the 2000% figure does not seem ridiculous at all, to me.
of course, people make mistakes. perhaps, it was really only 1000%, or 500%(5 is the factor i hear engineers often go for when designing).
i'll ask wiki....
QUOTE
For example, components whose failure could result in substantial financial loss, serious injury or death usually can use a safety factor of four or higher (often ten). Non-critical components generally have a design factor of two.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 6 2007, 06:46 PM)
metamars
And back in the day that was true. The WTC buildings, however used about 2 times(200%) calculated needed strength(misprinted or misunderstood as 2000% in at least one case) in this optimized design. 2 times maximum live loads on the floors, 2 times maximum load on the core and frame. Some computer designed structures today may be using 1.5 or less. NASA has been using safety factors of less than one since Apollo or even earlier. In Aerospace in general low margins of excess strength(and thus weight).
And, no, the building was NOT designed from the beginning to withstand an aircraft collision, though it stood for ~ hour(in each case) after it was hit. It is even possible the building would have collapsed on it's own (especially 2) even without a fire. Tilting of the upper block on 2 began almost immediately, indicating creep, load transfer, etc. leading to failure and collapse.
Grumpy
Considering the state of computer modeling in the 60's and 70's, on what basis did the WTC designers feel justified in cutting traditional safety margins? (If what you say is true, that is.) A feeling in their collective guts?
And back in the day that was true. The WTC buildings, however used about 2 times(200%) calculated needed strength(misprinted or misunderstood as 2000% in at least one case) in this optimized design. 2 times maximum live loads on the floors, 2 times maximum load on the core and frame. Some computer designed structures today may be using 1.5 or less. NASA has been using safety factors of less than one since Apollo or even earlier. In Aerospace in general low margins of excess strength(and thus weight).
And, no, the building was NOT designed from the beginning to withstand an aircraft collision, though it stood for ~ hour(in each case) after it was hit. It is even possible the building would have collapsed on it's own (especially 2) even without a fire. Tilting of the upper block on 2 began almost immediately, indicating creep, load transfer, etc. leading to failure and collapse.
Grumpy
Considering the state of computer modeling in the 60's and 70's, on what basis did the WTC designers feel justified in cutting traditional safety margins? (If what you say is true, that is.) A feeling in their collective guts?
QUOTE
A safety factor of 6 in the perimeter columns? This is probably the most outrageous claim i have ever heard in regards to the WTC's construction.
His point was that the safety factor was 2x, not 6x, and certainly not 20x (2000%) as Malmo glibly asserted.
I haven't read what the safety factor was, but my guess would be that it'd be closer to 2x than 6x, and that 20x is as ridiculous as the 10^88 number tossed out earlier regarding WTC7.
I don't see how the Troothers' can claim any sort of deep understanding of anything having to do with structural integrity when they throw around these wild numbers, seemingly with a straight face.
The WTC towers didn't collapse suddenly any more than a person dies quickly of heart disease. A guy may have *looked* fine right up the time he had a fatal hear attack, but the *problem* started with his first cheeseburger, if you follow the analogy.
In the WTC collapses, the upper parts of each tower had significant lean to them prior to what people on both sides are wrongly saying is the "start" of the collapse. When I see people debating whether the collapse took 10 seconds or 12 or whatever, they're both making the same fundamental error - The collapses started when the upper sections started to lean. Unless someone can collect that angle-rate data from the video footage of the event and show me where the angle-rate went to zero, post-impact, I'm taking the position that the duration of the collapse began when the towers started leaning and ended when the last chunk of concrete hit the street. It just sped up in the middle, as one should expect.
Anyone who wants to debate whether it fell in ten seconds or twelve needs to be more clear about what the threshold value he's using to start that stopwatch, because as long as the top is tilting over, the Cg of the top is descending at a non-zero rate.
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.). "It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down."
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) North Tower. "We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door."
Stephen Evans, North America Business Corrospondent "then somebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those towers. Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower down and i dont know what caused that"
Cary Sheih -WTC 1 Survivor:
"I was a few floors from the ground. Floor,,,,4,,,,then all of a sudden, a loud boom, and the building began to shake unbearably again. People started falling down the stairwell as smoke started to rise from the bottom. The emergency lights flickered and then went out. The building was still shaking, and I could hear the steel buckling."
Louie Cacchioli -- Firefighter. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out"
Officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said about the south tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.” Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: “[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.
Assistant Chief Engineer at the World Trade Center arrived on the 38th floor of the North Tower before the plane hit, got out of the elevator, and about 50 feet down the hallway, he heard a loud explosion and was lifted into the air. "I can't even tell you how far I traveled," he recalled. When he landed, people were already coming out of their offices into the hallway . . .Upon reaching the 43rd floor, "there were patches of ceiling that was just down on the floor, water pipes were broken, water was gushing like a brook or river that was just running down the corridor of the machine room."
David - “That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned. I sat there for a couple of seconds on the floor and felt like I was going to die, saying to myself ‘God, please give me strength.’”
Giambanco. sub level 1. "“We heard the explosion and the smoke all of a sudden came from all over. There was an incredible force of wind that also swept everything away. I remember hearing a scream of a woman, but I couldn’t see her. I had just gotten off the elevator and I was standing by it with another man but didn’t know his name."
BIG explosion below floor 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwc9YtSduJc
Sergei Siletzky a Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."
A fire department batallion chief stated "it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see (redacted) I could see two sides of it and the other side, it just looked like that floor blew out" (what was in the redacted portion?). http*://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Dixon_Brian.txt
CBS News reporter stated "All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ... I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame...". (same reporter stated "I hear simultaneously this roar and see what appears to be a gigantic fireball rising up at ground level . . . I remember seeing this giant ball of fire come out of the earth as I heard this roar"
Tris McCall - "Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred."
Police Officer - "We went back up to the sixth floor . . . . Then there was an eerie silence and it was like you knew something was going to happen. There just seemed to be one explosion after another. I was separated from the guys from the bridge . . . by another explosion, massive again, sucking the air out of your lungs and then just a wind more intense this time with larger pieces of debris flying."
A janitor witnessed explosions in the sub-basement a carpenter witnessed explosions in the sub-basement A Port Authority Police Department officer, who was intimately familiar with the World Trade Center from his years of police duties patrolling there, described how the hallway began to shudder as a "terrible deafening roar" swept over him, then a giant fireball exploded in the street seconds before the south tower collapsed
http*://www.youtube.com/v/iMkyLLlowA8
http*://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=201
http*://www.bowhunter.com/feature_articles/BN_FromTheRubble
Paramedic "heard ground level explosions" (page 29) http*://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8160/1d/www.newsday.com/includes/fdny-9-11/pdf/9110486.pdf
Detective for the Port Authority reported, long before the collapse of the tower, "When we reached the 15th floor, the building began to vibrate and shake. I heard loud explosions and rumblings in the background. The stairwell shifted and gave out a large metal on metal groan. The stairwell then twisted back into place with another loud groan. The lights went out. At that point the stairwell became filled with smoke and dust." (pages 58 & 59, which is page 2 & 3 of a memo from the Office of Inspector General) http*://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf
A police report states World Trade Center "Police Desk reporting an explosion on the lower level" 8 minutes after plane crash (page 17, which is page 2 of the Chronological Report of the WTC Radio Transmissions on 9/11/01) http*://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf
Police officer stated "we kept hearing explosions that would shake the whole room" http*://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf
No bombs in wtc?
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists." ~ J. Edgar Hoover
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) North Tower. "We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door."
Stephen Evans, North America Business Corrospondent "then somebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those towers. Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower down and i dont know what caused that"
Cary Sheih -WTC 1 Survivor:
"I was a few floors from the ground. Floor,,,,4,,,,then all of a sudden, a loud boom, and the building began to shake unbearably again. People started falling down the stairwell as smoke started to rise from the bottom. The emergency lights flickered and then went out. The building was still shaking, and I could hear the steel buckling."
Louie Cacchioli -- Firefighter. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out"
Officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said about the south tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.” Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: “[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.
Assistant Chief Engineer at the World Trade Center arrived on the 38th floor of the North Tower before the plane hit, got out of the elevator, and about 50 feet down the hallway, he heard a loud explosion and was lifted into the air. "I can't even tell you how far I traveled," he recalled. When he landed, people were already coming out of their offices into the hallway . . .Upon reaching the 43rd floor, "there were patches of ceiling that was just down on the floor, water pipes were broken, water was gushing like a brook or river that was just running down the corridor of the machine room."
David - “That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned. I sat there for a couple of seconds on the floor and felt like I was going to die, saying to myself ‘God, please give me strength.’”
Giambanco. sub level 1. "“We heard the explosion and the smoke all of a sudden came from all over. There was an incredible force of wind that also swept everything away. I remember hearing a scream of a woman, but I couldn’t see her. I had just gotten off the elevator and I was standing by it with another man but didn’t know his name."
BIG explosion below floor 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwc9YtSduJc
Sergei Siletzky a Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."
A fire department batallion chief stated "it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see (redacted) I could see two sides of it and the other side, it just looked like that floor blew out" (what was in the redacted portion?). http*://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Dixon_Brian.txt
CBS News reporter stated "All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ... I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame...". (same reporter stated "I hear simultaneously this roar and see what appears to be a gigantic fireball rising up at ground level . . . I remember seeing this giant ball of fire come out of the earth as I heard this roar"
Tris McCall - "Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred."
Police Officer - "We went back up to the sixth floor . . . . Then there was an eerie silence and it was like you knew something was going to happen. There just seemed to be one explosion after another. I was separated from the guys from the bridge . . . by another explosion, massive again, sucking the air out of your lungs and then just a wind more intense this time with larger pieces of debris flying."
A janitor witnessed explosions in the sub-basement a carpenter witnessed explosions in the sub-basement A Port Authority Police Department officer, who was intimately familiar with the World Trade Center from his years of police duties patrolling there, described how the hallway began to shudder as a "terrible deafening roar" swept over him, then a giant fireball exploded in the street seconds before the south tower collapsed
http*://www.youtube.com/v/iMkyLLlowA8
http*://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=201
http*://www.bowhunter.com/feature_articles/BN_FromTheRubble
Paramedic "heard ground level explosions" (page 29) http*://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8160/1d/www.newsday.com/includes/fdny-9-11/pdf/9110486.pdf
Detective for the Port Authority reported, long before the collapse of the tower, "When we reached the 15th floor, the building began to vibrate and shake. I heard loud explosions and rumblings in the background. The stairwell shifted and gave out a large metal on metal groan. The stairwell then twisted back into place with another loud groan. The lights went out. At that point the stairwell became filled with smoke and dust." (pages 58 & 59, which is page 2 & 3 of a memo from the Office of Inspector General) http*://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf
A police report states World Trade Center "Police Desk reporting an explosion on the lower level" 8 minutes after plane crash (page 17, which is page 2 of the Chronological Report of the WTC Radio Transmissions on 9/11/01) http*://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf
Police officer stated "we kept hearing explosions that would shake the whole room" http*://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf
No bombs in wtc?
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists." ~ J. Edgar Hoover
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 6 2007, 08:36 PM)
His point was that the safety factor was 2x, not 6x, and certainly not 20x (2000%) as Malmo glibly asserted.
I haven't read what the safety factor was, but my guess would be that it'd be closer to 2x than 6x, and that 20x is as ridiculous as the 10^88 number tossed out earlier regarding WTC7.
Anyone who wants to debate whether it fell in ten seconds or twelve needs to be more clear about what the threshold value he's using to start that stopwatch, because as long as the top is tilting over, the Cg of the top is descending at a non-zero rate.
1) Yeah, but I see what Newton is saying. It is possible that as a component the tree could probably hold 2000% of its design load. This of course means that as a component it sustain a load of 2000000 Kg but only to designed to sustain 10000 Kg. This makes sense because the tree is not stand alone and it's design load would also incorporate the connection between itself and the tree above and below it.
2) The last i read of the safety factor it was 1.67 for the core and 1.7 for the exterior. This would put the building on the whole right around the same wouldn't it?
3) This is a good point I have never really explored. Your reasoning is sound. As a physics person I always refer to this as "the point of equilibrium", beyond which it global collapse
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 6 2007, 08:36 PM)
His point was that the safety factor was 2x, not 6x, and certainly not 20x (2000%) as Malmo glibly asserted.
it was not a glib assertion. it was published in "The Engineering Record". 2000% overengineering of the perimeter columns.
there is no way the perimeter was 2X. that is ludicrous. just look at the thing. 208 columns spaced three ft. apart. it could have held up with less than half of those. less than a third, and probably less than a sixth.
the core only had 47 columns, and it was refered to as a 'supercore'. so, if the supercore was only 2X(which is ridiculous), that means it could have stood with only 24 columns.
seeing as the core supposedly took 60% of the load, that means the other 40% is on the perimeter, and so, if 23 columns can hold up the core, than 24 columns could hold up the perimeter.
lets see, 208/24 is a safety factor of around 10.
of course, that assumes all columns equal, which was not the case.
in reality, the core could probably have stood with less than half of the columns, as a factor of 2 for such a large and 'groundbreaking' design would be unthinkable to the designers and owners.
2000% is not that ridiculous.
200% is.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 6 2007, 08:55 PM)
2) The last i read of the safety factor it was 1.67 for the core and 1.7 for the exterior. This would put the building on the whole right around the same wouldn't it?
where did you read this? do you have a link?
where did you read this? do you have a link?
QUOTE (newton+Jun 6 2007, 09:00 PM)
where did you read this? do you have a link?
Looks like I may be a little off Newton I found this
"S. Sunder at a NIST Progress Report on the WTC Building Performance, presented Oct 19th, 2004, stated that the safety factor for the yielding and buckling of core columns is 1.67.)"
I'm not sure where i got the exterior safety factor. Perhaps it was in that briefing report or something. Sorry I don't have a better link.
Looks like I may be a little off Newton I found this
"S. Sunder at a NIST Progress Report on the WTC Building Performance, presented Oct 19th, 2004, stated that the safety factor for the yielding and buckling of core columns is 1.67.)"
I'm not sure where i got the exterior safety factor. Perhaps it was in that briefing report or something. Sorry I don't have a better link.
The 2000% that newton refers to was supposedly about supporting an increase in LIVE LOAD, not DESIGN load.
Problem is there is yet to be anyone to back up that statement with any FACTS.
newton however lobs this unsourced and unsubstantiated quote onto the forum fairly regularly, as if it is PROOF of something.
NIST on the otherhand DID compute the Demand to Capacity Ratio for all the columns in the tower and they didn't come anywhere NEAR this number.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A fig 5-2
Most of the DCRs are in the range of .5 to .75 though there are some higher.
Arthur
Problem is there is yet to be anyone to back up that statement with any FACTS.
newton however lobs this unsourced and unsubstantiated quote onto the forum fairly regularly, as if it is PROOF of something.
NIST on the otherhand DID compute the Demand to Capacity Ratio for all the columns in the tower and they didn't come anywhere NEAR this number.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A fig 5-2
Most of the DCRs are in the range of .5 to .75 though there are some higher.
Arthur
I've already explained this several times, but the speed of sound in steel is 20,000fps, 20x as fast as in air, so any sudden shock to the structure at 700 feet up in the air will be felt at ground level before it's heard at ground level.
Causes of sudden shocks include airplanes hitting buildings at 450mph, trusses popping off their brackets, floors collapsing, etc.
Let's say you have a truss that's designed for a tensile load of 10 tons tied between a steel core and a steel curtain wall, but you subject that truss to 25 tons instead of its design load of 10. So long as it holds the load, it's pulling on both the core and the curtain wall with a force of 25 tons. Both the core and the curtain wall are likewise exerting the same force on the truss, and this force comes from the spring-constant of the core and curtain-wall. There's a small displacement of each which is proportional to the force, let's say it's an inch (round numbers). Now the truss fails, and both the core and the curtain-wall snap back that 1 inch (and typically, overshoot by almost another inch) in the opposite direction.
This is called an "impulse". This impulse travels the length of the structure down both the core and the curtain wall at the speed of sound in the material, which is 20,000fps in steel. The core and everything it's connected to and the curtain wall and everything it's connected to all react to this impulse as it's transmitted through the entire structure. From 700 feet in the air, the impulse reaches the basement foundation in 0.035 seconds. The sound through the air takes 0.700 seconds, about 2/3rds of a second later. People at ground level will hear the "BANG!" generated locally by the impulse through the steel structure and feel a *THUD* through their feet, then hear the sound of what caused it, faintly (bang), from 700 feet up, 2/3rds of a second later.
How many average people out there understand enough physics to realize that the distant (bang) they heard *AFTER* they heard the local BANG! and felt the local *THUD* was the *cause* of the BANG! and the *THUD*? Most people don't understand *any* physics, so all they know is they heard a loud BANG! and felt a big *THUD* locally, and they'll say, "It sounded like a BOMB!".
Incidentally, thermate doesn't go BANG!. I thought that was central to your CD theory.
Causes of sudden shocks include airplanes hitting buildings at 450mph, trusses popping off their brackets, floors collapsing, etc.
Let's say you have a truss that's designed for a tensile load of 10 tons tied between a steel core and a steel curtain wall, but you subject that truss to 25 tons instead of its design load of 10. So long as it holds the load, it's pulling on both the core and the curtain wall with a force of 25 tons. Both the core and the curtain wall are likewise exerting the same force on the truss, and this force comes from the spring-constant of the core and curtain-wall. There's a small displacement of each which is proportional to the force, let's say it's an inch (round numbers). Now the truss fails, and both the core and the curtain-wall snap back that 1 inch (and typically, overshoot by almost another inch) in the opposite direction.
This is called an "impulse". This impulse travels the length of the structure down both the core and the curtain wall at the speed of sound in the material, which is 20,000fps in steel. The core and everything it's connected to and the curtain wall and everything it's connected to all react to this impulse as it's transmitted through the entire structure. From 700 feet in the air, the impulse reaches the basement foundation in 0.035 seconds. The sound through the air takes 0.700 seconds, about 2/3rds of a second later. People at ground level will hear the "BANG!" generated locally by the impulse through the steel structure and feel a *THUD* through their feet, then hear the sound of what caused it, faintly (bang), from 700 feet up, 2/3rds of a second later.
How many average people out there understand enough physics to realize that the distant (bang) they heard *AFTER* they heard the local BANG! and felt the local *THUD* was the *cause* of the BANG! and the *THUD*? Most people don't understand *any* physics, so all they know is they heard a loud BANG! and felt a big *THUD* locally, and they'll say, "It sounded like a BOMB!".
Incidentally, thermate doesn't go BANG!. I thought that was central to your CD theory.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 6 2007, 08:55 PM)
The last i read of the safety factor it was 1.67 for the core and 1.7 for the exterior.
Yes, the safety factor in the DCR calculation, used against Buckling of columns, was 1.67 in the core. A larger safety factor for the exterior seems reasonable.
However, this engineering use of the term safety factor is only used in determining the DCR, Design to Capacity Ratio. The average DCR in the core was about 0.5 before the aircraft impacts, see NCSTAR1-6D. That means that, according to the design criteria, the core columns could, in principle supp rt twice the load on that day. Many lay people write 'safety factor' for 1/DCR. This leads to confusion.
I have had to estimate the average DCR for the exterior walls, not being able to find a statement about it in MCSTAR1, except under maximum wind load conditions. With mild breezes, my estimate is about 0.45.
Yes, the safety factor in the DCR calculation, used against Buckling of columns, was 1.67 in the core. A larger safety factor for the exterior seems reasonable.
However, this engineering use of the term safety factor is only used in determining the DCR, Design to Capacity Ratio. The average DCR in the core was about 0.5 before the aircraft impacts, see NCSTAR1-6D. That means that, according to the design criteria, the core columns could, in principle supp rt twice the load on that day. Many lay people write 'safety factor' for 1/DCR. This leads to confusion.
I have had to estimate the average DCR for the exterior walls, not being able to find a statement about it in MCSTAR1, except under maximum wind load conditions. With mild breezes, my estimate is about 0.45.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 6 2007, 08:58 PM)
it was not a glib assertion. it was published in "The Engineering Record". 2000% overengineering of the perimeter columns.
2000% is not that ridiculous.
200% is.
The main consideration in the safety factor is seismic activity for that region. Having worked in Vancouver, a highly seismic area, I have never seen a building safety factor above 2. I believe I discussed this over at the JREF forum with a structural engineer, he agreed as well. I'm almost certain that a safety factor of 20 is not even possible in a 110 story building above ground.
2000% is not that ridiculous.
200% is.
The main consideration in the safety factor is seismic activity for that region. Having worked in Vancouver, a highly seismic area, I have never seen a building safety factor above 2. I believe I discussed this over at the JREF forum with a structural engineer, he agreed as well. I'm almost certain that a safety factor of 20 is not even possible in a 110 story building above ground.
QUOTE
of course, that assumes all columns equal, which was not the case.
It also assumes that the remaining columns are all equally-spaced. They weren't. Remember that huge gash that the planes left in the side? The load that was expected to be supported by all those missing members was concentrated at the edges of the gash.
Also, the strength figure cited for the wall columns didn't assume they'd be free-standing without horizontal supports holding everything in perfect alignment. They'll go unstable without that horizontal bracing provided by the floor trusses. (Like they did when they bowed out/in.)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 6 2007, 09:11 PM)
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A fig 5-2
Most of the DCRs are in the range of .5 to .75 though there are some higher.
That's subsection 5.3.1 which considers a 98 mph wind (at the top).
Most of the DCRs are in the range of .5 to .75 though there are some higher.
That's subsection 5.3.1 which considers a 98 mph wind (at the top).
wcelliott
Lets say there was no bombs in the building. It is still an inside job. They let the attacks happen and funded the terrorist. Like they said in PNAC "We need a new pearl harbor" And they got it. This guys are truly evil.
Lets say there was no bombs in the building. It is still an inside job. They let the attacks happen and funded the terrorist. Like they said in PNAC "We need a new pearl harbor" And they got it. This guys are truly evil.
I've already explained this several times, but the speed of sound in steel is 20,000fps, 20x as fast as in air, so any sudden shock to the structure at 700 feet up in the air will be felt at ground level before it's heard at ground level.
Please stop your BS you make me sick.
Sergei Siletzky a Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."
It was the sound that destroyed the garage?
And there is NO law for you to pay income tax. So stop talking about something you know nothing about. Watch the movie America freedom to fascism. The banks was taken over by criminals a LONG time ago.
BTW, Have you read some history now?? you believe in anything the government tells you. Go onto the fema buses when they want to pick you up and go to their camps. zombie. Resistance to Tyranny Is Obedience to God
It Is The Duty Of A Patriot To Protect His Country From The Government - Thomas Paine
Live Free Or Die Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils -General John Stark
DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER
QUOTE
It was a conjured lie, spread to anger the French populace to the point where they were willing to overthrow the French monarchy.
Lets say there was no bombs in the building. It is still an inside job. They let the attacks happen and funded the terrorist. Like they said in PNAC "We need a new pearl harbor" And they got it. This guys are truly evil.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It was a conjured lie, spread to anger the French populace to the point where they were willing to overthrow the French monarchy. |
Lets say there was no bombs in the building. It is still an inside job. They let the attacks happen and funded the terrorist. Like they said in PNAC "We need a new pearl harbor" And they got it. This guys are truly evil.
I've already explained this several times, but the speed of sound in steel is 20,000fps, 20x as fast as in air, so any sudden shock to the structure at 700 feet up in the air will be felt at ground level before it's heard at ground level.
Please stop your BS you make me sick.
Sergei Siletzky a Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."
It was the sound that destroyed the garage?
And there is NO law for you to pay income tax. So stop talking about something you know nothing about. Watch the movie America freedom to fascism. The banks was taken over by criminals a LONG time ago.
BTW, Have you read some history now??
you believe in anything the government tells you. Go onto the fema buses when they want to pick you up and go to their camps. zombie. Resistance to Tyranny Is Obedience to God It Is The Duty Of A Patriot To Protect His Country From The Government - Thomas Paine
Live Free Or Die Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils -General John Stark
DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 6 2007, 09:18 PM)
The main consideration in the safety factor is seismic activity for that region.
Ley person's 'safety factor'.
The design rules specify calculating the DCR for every member and every connection under the contractual design load. Simplified, there is the dead weight, D, the maximum legal live weight, L, and environment loads, such as earthquakes E. The entire load for computing the DCR is then
D+L+E
Now E is an example of an extreme event. Further, most buildings are rarely operating any where near L. More typical is 0.25L, although much higher for warehouses.
Since earthquakes are rare events, office building, schools and hospitals (only a few stories high) done according to GSA rules use instead
D+0.25L+E
for determining the DCR during an earthquake.
By the way, FEMA offers three levels of building safety:
Immediate Occupancy --- cracks in walls and windows, building equipment may not be operating, but available for emergency shelter. Safe.
Life Safety --- Building partial collapses or other damage is unlikely to kill anybody, although there may be serious injuries.
Structural Safety --- Building does not collapse or overturn.
These might be used in conjunction with ever more unlikely earthquakes:
Major --- Magnitude 7.0 and up
Great --- Magnitude 8.0 and up
Stupendous(?) --- Magnitude 9.0 and up. There have only been two such in the last 102 years, one in Alaska and one in Chile. Of some interest with regard in the Chilean 9.5 event was that many people were attending mass when the earth shook and the churches were well enough built that at least the Structural Safety criterion was met, and probably the Life Safety one as well.
Ley person's 'safety factor'.
The design rules specify calculating the DCR for every member and every connection under the contractual design load. Simplified, there is the dead weight, D, the maximum legal live weight, L, and environment loads, such as earthquakes E. The entire load for computing the DCR is then
D+L+E
Now E is an example of an extreme event. Further, most buildings are rarely operating any where near L. More typical is 0.25L, although much higher for warehouses.
Since earthquakes are rare events, office building, schools and hospitals (only a few stories high) done according to GSA rules use instead
D+0.25L+E
for determining the DCR during an earthquake.
By the way, FEMA offers three levels of building safety:
Immediate Occupancy --- cracks in walls and windows, building equipment may not be operating, but available for emergency shelter. Safe.
Life Safety --- Building partial collapses or other damage is unlikely to kill anybody, although there may be serious injuries.
Structural Safety --- Building does not collapse or overturn.
These might be used in conjunction with ever more unlikely earthquakes:
Major --- Magnitude 7.0 and up
Great --- Magnitude 8.0 and up
Stupendous(?) --- Magnitude 9.0 and up. There have only been two such in the last 102 years, one in Alaska and one in Chile. Of some interest with regard in the Chilean 9.5 event was that many people were attending mass when the earth shook and the churches were well enough built that at least the Structural Safety criterion was met, and probably the Life Safety one as well.
einsteen --- I suspect that CDI blows out 2 stories just to be sure that the building comes down exactly where they want it to...
QUOTE (newton+Jun 6 2007, 04:08 AM)
and, despite the obvious truth shown by the pictures ...
Nope. GR drew his lines in the wrong places. Wonder why he did that?
Nope. GR drew his lines in the wrong places. Wonder why he did that?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 6 2007, 11:18 PM)
Nope. GR drew his lines in the wrong places. Wonder why he did that?
it doesn't look wrong to me. i talked to gordon on this very site, and he is one of the few here who actually saw the physical reality, and saw the problem with the official math.
there is nothing wrong with his lines, and your unsupported statement looks like egg.
the cap crumples like a cheap suit, and then, and only then, does the collapse continue below the floor that has resisted the collapse of ten storeys onto it's angle clips, floor joists and everything else determinedby OCT supporters as 'weak' and 'the only thing you have to break', and, 'taking the full brunt of the cap's kinetic energy'.
wow, there must be some serious sleep loss going on somewhere since those 60 architects and engineers decided to look for truth.
since nearly day one, i have been pointing out that the (first and fatal) problem with the official lie, which (plastic) hinges on BZ, assumes an instant one storey drop, because that is what was seen.
that is circular reasoning, and yet, the OCT camp will start talking about quantum entanglement between the basement and the roof before they admit that the very first assumption of the whole official lie cannot be true.
the truth persists, whereas lies work against each other, and phase cancel each other out.
it doesn't look wrong to me. i talked to gordon on this very site, and he is one of the few here who actually saw the physical reality, and saw the problem with the official math.
there is nothing wrong with his lines, and your unsupported statement looks like egg.
the cap crumples like a cheap suit, and then, and only then, does the collapse continue below the floor that has resisted the collapse of ten storeys onto it's angle clips, floor joists and everything else determinedby OCT supporters as 'weak' and 'the only thing you have to break', and, 'taking the full brunt of the cap's kinetic energy'.
wow, there must be some serious sleep loss going on somewhere since those 60 architects and engineers decided to look for truth.
since nearly day one, i have been pointing out that the (first and fatal) problem with the official lie, which (plastic) hinges on BZ, assumes an instant one storey drop, because that is what was seen.
that is circular reasoning, and yet, the OCT camp will start talking about quantum entanglement between the basement and the roof before they admit that the very first assumption of the whole official lie cannot be true.
the truth persists, whereas lies work against each other, and phase cancel each other out.
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.