QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 02:07 PM)
Its pretty simple really.
If you test WITH SFRM, you can measure the steel temps and the sag.
You can then measure how fast steel heats up without SFRM (as in their experiments) and use the TWO sets of data points to predict how a non-insulated trust will react.
Its called SCIENCE.
Too bad you don't get it.
Arthur
We could have a REAL test and KNOW the way the trusses without SFRM react.
Or
We could do it the OCT scientific ways and make a prediction and speculate what would happen from test that do not match the WTC conditions.
Why does the OCT scientist always chose the second?
Then they need the Shills to tell the sheeple this is normal and scientific.
If you test WITH SFRM, you can measure the steel temps and the sag.
You can then measure how fast steel heats up without SFRM (as in their experiments) and use the TWO sets of data points to predict how a non-insulated trust will react.
Its called SCIENCE.
Too bad you don't get it.
Arthur
We could have a REAL test and KNOW the way the trusses without SFRM react.
Or
We could do it the OCT scientific ways and make a prediction and speculate what would happen from test that do not match the WTC conditions.
Why does the OCT scientist always chose the second?
Then they need the Shills to tell the sheeple this is normal and scientific.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 05:34 PM)
Look, I have been for a very long time involved in the 9/11 issue. I know it all from a-z.
Sure Daru, your scientific credibility is tops.
Sure Daru, your scientific credibility is tops.
QUOTE (Daru+)
there was no B757 at the Pentagon 9/11.
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 15 2007, 05:47 PM)
We could have a REAL test and KNOW the way the trusses without SFRM react.
SFRM is not structural, so the trusses will react essentially the same with or without SFRM, just FASTER without.
You obviously wouldn't be satisfied unless they built another tower and ran a jet into it.
SO, keep on beating this dead horse,
But,
Get used to disappointment.
Arthur
SFRM is not structural, so the trusses will react essentially the same with or without SFRM, just FASTER without.
You obviously wouldn't be satisfied unless they built another tower and ran a jet into it.
SO, keep on beating this dead horse,
But,
Get used to disappointment.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 11:21 PM)
SO, keep on beating this dead horse,
You sure its not a dead lizard?
You sure its not a dead lizard?
Daru:
NIST has made the loss of SFRM in the impact zone a key factor in its collapse model. How exactly do you see this as a problem?
NIST has made the loss of SFRM in the impact zone a key factor in its collapse model. How exactly do you see this as a problem?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 11:00 PM)
QUOTE (Daru+)
there was no B757 at the Pentagon 9/11.
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
April Gallop was there:
GW: I know that you have previously been quoted about things like thinking that a bomb had exploded in the Pentagon, and that you did not see any plane debris in the Pentagon. I do not want to misquote you or twist your words. Is there anything you wish to state about these topics?
AG: I have been misquoted on numerous occassions. That happens when individuals have ulterior motives. But here is my statement for the record.
I was located at the E ring. From my inside perspective, with no knowledge of what had actually happened on the outside, it did sound like a bomb. And we had to escape the building before the floors, debris etc collapsed on us.
And I don't recall at anytime seeing any plane debris. Again, I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building. But I would have recalled unusual looking pieces similar to plane parts.
georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop.html
These people were there too:
Don Perkal noted that, “A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere”
Gilah Goldsmith was walking in the vicinity of the Pentagon, “We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke.”
John Bowman stated that, “Most people knew it was a bomb.”
April Gallop was there:
GW: I know that you have previously been quoted about things like thinking that a bomb had exploded in the Pentagon, and that you did not see any plane debris in the Pentagon. I do not want to misquote you or twist your words. Is there anything you wish to state about these topics?
AG: I have been misquoted on numerous occassions. That happens when individuals have ulterior motives. But here is my statement for the record.
I was located at the E ring. From my inside perspective, with no knowledge of what had actually happened on the outside, it did sound like a bomb. And we had to escape the building before the floors, debris etc collapsed on us.
And I don't recall at anytime seeing any plane debris. Again, I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building. But I would have recalled unusual looking pieces similar to plane parts.
georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop.html
These people were there too:
Don Perkal noted that, “A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere”
Gilah Goldsmith was walking in the vicinity of the Pentagon, “We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke.”
John Bowman stated that, “Most people knew it was a bomb.”
April had NO KNOWLEDGE of what had happened.
It sounded like a bomb.
Yeah, a plane hitting at 500 mph will probably SOUND LIKE A BOMB.
She didn't recall seeing any plane pieces.
Yeah, a plane hitting a KEVLAR REINFORCED WALL will not leave a lot of pieces that look anything like a plane.
As she admits: "I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building."
Of course there ARE lots of pictures of plane parts available for viewing (see Pentagon Thread)
As to the other unidentified people:
So it really doesn't matter if you can QUOTE MINE some people who didn't see the plane hit or thought it was a bomb.
The OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE is that the Pentagon was hit by a B757.
People who claim it was hit by a missile or some such BS are clearly not playing with a full deck.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
Arthur
April Gallop was there:
GW: I know that you have previously been quoted about things like thinking that a bomb had exploded in the Pentagon, and that you did not see any plane debris in the Pentagon. I do not want to misquote you or twist your words. Is there anything you wish to state about these topics?
AG: I have been misquoted on numerous occassions. That happens when individuals have ulterior motives. But here is my statement for the record.
I was located at the E ring. From my inside perspective, with no knowledge of what had actually happened on the outside, it did sound like a bomb. And we had to escape the building before the floors, debris etc collapsed on us.
And I don't recall at anytime seeing any plane debris. Again, I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building. But I would have recalled unusual looking pieces similar to plane parts.
georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop.html
These people were there too:
Don Perkal noted that, “A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere”
Gilah Goldsmith was walking in the vicinity of the Pentagon, “We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke.”
John Bowman stated that, “Most people knew it was a bomb.”
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 10:26 PM)
What happened in the UL test with sfrm and huge heat for a long time ? Frankly speaking: NOTHING!!
This seems to be a bit of an understatement.
NCSTAR1-6B fig. 5-70
NCSTAR1-6B fig. 5-70
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 07:42 PM)
April Gallop was there:
GW: I know that you have previously been quoted about things like thinking that a bomb had exploded in the Pentagon, and that you did not see any plane debris in the Pentagon. I do not want to misquote you or twist your words. Is there anything you wish to state about these topics?
AG: I have been misquoted on numerous occassions. That happens when individuals have ulterior motives. But here is my statement for the record.
I was located at the E ring. From my inside perspective, with no knowledge of what had actually happened on the outside, it did sound like a bomb. And we had to escape the building before the floors, debris etc collapsed on us.
And I don't recall at anytime seeing any plane debris. Again, I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building. But I would have recalled unusual looking pieces similar to plane parts.
georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop.html
These people were there too:
Don Perkal noted that, “A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere”
Gilah Goldsmith was walking in the vicinity of the Pentagon, “We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke.”
John Bowman stated that, “Most people knew it was a bomb.”
April had NO KNOWLEDGE of what had happened.
It sounded like a bomb.
Yeah, a plane hitting at 500 mph will probably SOUND LIKE A BOMB.
She didn't recall seeing any plane pieces.
Yeah, a plane hitting a KEVLAR REINFORCED WALL will not leave a lot of pieces that look anything like a plane.
As she admits: "I don't know what plane debris would look like after hitting a building."
Of course there ARE lots of pictures of plane parts available for viewing (see Pentagon Thread)
As to the other unidentified people:
QUOTE
Cordite is now obsolete and it is no longer produced. Production ceased in the United Kingdom, around the end of the 20th century, with the closure of the last World War II Cordite factory, ROF Bishopton.
So it really doesn't matter if you can QUOTE MINE some people who didn't see the plane hit or thought it was a bomb.
The OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE is that the Pentagon was hit by a B757.
People who claim it was hit by a missile or some such BS are clearly not playing with a full deck.
Arthur
I figure somebody probably knows this off the top of their head, but all hi-rises have a max-floor-load rating as part of their lease, where the lessor agrees to limit the amount of weight/square-foot to some average and peak value.
Would anybody know what those values would've been for the WTC towers?
It occurs to me that where there were holes in the floor from impact damage, that the still-intact floors below would end up with a lot of debris in piles below the holes. This could lead to localized overloading of floors below the impact zone.
Also, let's recognize that we shouldn't expect that a floor would collapse all at once, but would tend to fail piecemeal. If the brackets holding the trusses to the core were identical to those holding them to the perimeter columns, then the ones subjected to more heat would tend to fail first.
I'm thinking that the brackets at the core would've failed first, leaving the floor supported at the perimeter but not at the core, and that would pull the perimeter columns inward, all at once, immediately following the failure of the core brackets.
Thoughts?
Like I've said before, kick an empty steel garbage can and let me know if it *doesn't* sound like a bomb.
Lots of things *sound* like bombs because a bomb is very simple, acoustically. It's a sudden impulse, like you get from kicking a garbage can, or a strut failing under load, or a plane hitting the side of a building at 300mph.
There is no mystery here. People outside saw the plane hit the building, there was a highway nearby with lots of traffic. And there was lots of plane debris outside the Pentagon, and lots more inside.
Would anybody know what those values would've been for the WTC towers?
It occurs to me that where there were holes in the floor from impact damage, that the still-intact floors below would end up with a lot of debris in piles below the holes. This could lead to localized overloading of floors below the impact zone.
Also, let's recognize that we shouldn't expect that a floor would collapse all at once, but would tend to fail piecemeal. If the brackets holding the trusses to the core were identical to those holding them to the perimeter columns, then the ones subjected to more heat would tend to fail first.
I'm thinking that the brackets at the core would've failed first, leaving the floor supported at the perimeter but not at the core, and that would pull the perimeter columns inward, all at once, immediately following the failure of the core brackets.
Thoughts?
QUOTE
my inside perspective, with no knowledge of what had actually happened on the outside, it did sound like a bomb.
Like I've said before, kick an empty steel garbage can and let me know if it *doesn't* sound like a bomb.
Lots of things *sound* like bombs because a bomb is very simple, acoustically. It's a sudden impulse, like you get from kicking a garbage can, or a strut failing under load, or a plane hitting the side of a building at 300mph.
There is no mystery here. People outside saw the plane hit the building, there was a highway nearby with lots of traffic. And there was lots of plane debris outside the Pentagon, and lots more inside.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 15 2007, 09:18 PM)
I figure somebody probably knows this off the top of their head, but all hi-rises have a max-floor-load rating as part of their lease, where the lessor agrees to limit the amount of weight/square-foot to some average and peak value.
Would anybody know what those values would've been for the WTC towers?
Its not just one value.
Take a look at NIST NCSTAR 1-2A and particularly Chapter 6 - Baseline Performance analysis of typical floor model.
Arthur
Would anybody know what those values would've been for the WTC towers?
Its not just one value.
Take a look at NIST NCSTAR 1-2A and particularly Chapter 6 - Baseline Performance analysis of typical floor model.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 16 2007, 01:43 AM)
This seems to be a bit of an understatement.
NCSTAR1-6B fig. 5-70
This pic support what I am saying. In this test the main truss reached over 700°C after about one hour... but what one can clearly see in the pic that the small bowing is not because of heat... no it is because of a HUGE loading. It is very clear in the pic. And according to Kevin Ryan nist "loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors"
911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
And in fact everbody should read what Kevin is saying. Everything he has said from the beginning has turned out to be the painfull truth.
NCSTAR1-6B fig. 5-70
This pic support what I am saying. In this test the main truss reached over 700°C after about one hour... but what one can clearly see in the pic that the small bowing is not because of heat... no it is because of a HUGE loading. It is very clear in the pic. And according to Kevin Ryan nist "loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors"
911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
And in fact everbody should read what Kevin is saying. Everything he has said from the beginning has turned out to be the painfull truth.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 16 2007, 03:08 AM)
This pic support what I am saying. In this test the main truss reached over 700°C after about one hour... but what one can clearly see in the pic that the small bowing is not because of heat... no it is because of a HUGE loading. It is very clear in the pic. And according to Kevin Ryan nist "loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors"
The loads were applied so as to simulate the maximum load condition allowed under structural design criteria. This was necessary to satisfy the ASTM E 119 test conditions. This was the point of the tests: to determine if the floor assemblies could get a two-hour rating under these conditions.
You said that nothing happened to the trusses. I was commenting on this inaccurate statement. Now you want to explain what happened away. The loads were appropriate for the main goal of the tests. The 17 Ft assemblies with 1/2 inches thick fireproofing only managed to get 3/4h ratings both in retrained and unrestrained conditions.
On edit: Much a fuss is made over the fact that (supposedly) the trusses did not sag much in the NIST furnace tests performed at UL. As adoucette again mentioned recently, it the increasing loads on the perimeter that are claimed to be responsible for the pronounced bowing of the walls after the sagging floors lost their bracing resistance: they wouldn't provide sufficient push-out forces!
As for the the issue of initial pull-in force, consider this: How does the horizontal component of the tension in a soft catenary of fixed length vary as a function of its mid-point vertical deflection?
The loads were applied so as to simulate the maximum load condition allowed under structural design criteria. This was necessary to satisfy the ASTM E 119 test conditions. This was the point of the tests: to determine if the floor assemblies could get a two-hour rating under these conditions.
You said that nothing happened to the trusses. I was commenting on this inaccurate statement. Now you want to explain what happened away. The loads were appropriate for the main goal of the tests. The 17 Ft assemblies with 1/2 inches thick fireproofing only managed to get 3/4h ratings both in retrained and unrestrained conditions.
On edit: Much a fuss is made over the fact that (supposedly) the trusses did not sag much in the NIST furnace tests performed at UL. As adoucette again mentioned recently, it the increasing loads on the perimeter that are claimed to be responsible for the pronounced bowing of the walls after the sagging floors lost their bracing resistance: they wouldn't provide sufficient push-out forces!
As for the the issue of initial pull-in force, consider this: How does the horizontal component of the tension in a soft catenary of fixed length vary as a function of its mid-point vertical deflection?
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 15 2007, 10:08 PM)
This pic support what I am saying. In this test the main truss reached over 700°C after about one hour... but what one can clearly see in the pic that the small bowing is not because of heat... no it is because of a HUGE loading. It is very clear in the pic. And according to Kevin Ryan nist "loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors"
911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
And in fact everbody should read what Kevin is saying. Everything he has said from the beginning has turned out to be the painfull truth.
The loading on the floor in that test was 100 lbs per sq ft.
The design live load for the tennent spaces was 100 lbs per sq ft.
Which is why NIST tested it at the rated load.
The ACTUAL loading on the floors was not known.
But as explained in the paper: THE BEHAVIOUR OF LIGHTWEIGHT COMPOSITE FLOOR TRUSSES IN FIRE by S.K. Choi & I.W. Burgess
Arthur
911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
And in fact everbody should read what Kevin is saying. Everything he has said from the beginning has turned out to be the painfull truth.
The loading on the floor in that test was 100 lbs per sq ft.
The design live load for the tennent spaces was 100 lbs per sq ft.
Which is why NIST tested it at the rated load.
The ACTUAL loading on the floors was not known.
But as explained in the paper: THE BEHAVIOUR OF LIGHTWEIGHT COMPOSITE FLOOR TRUSSES IN FIRE by S.K. Choi & I.W. Burgess
QUOTE
The analyses showed that the performance of the protected and unprotected composite trusses was not very sensitive to the load level, in terms of either deflection or resistance period.
Arthur
Yes yes yes. You can qoute this or that... but the key point is; The small bowing (or what ever it should be called) in the pic, is from the huge load in the test.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 16 2007, 03:56 AM)
Yes yes yes. You can qoute this or that... but the key point is; The small bowing (or what ever it should be called) in the pic, is from the huge load in the test.
Sorry Daru, I've edited my post right after you replied. Can you reflect on the question I've added at the end?
Sorry Daru, I've edited my post right after you replied. Can you reflect on the question I've added at the end?
Tell you what. What you so called "expert" are always trying to do is: Doing it all as complicated as possible and always trying to tell ordinary people that they dont understand it and so on.
Tell you another thing. I am a construction worker. I know very well how things works in real world out there.
So, what was this pic supposed to support ? Nist theory of magically 50 inch sagged trusses ? And inward pull on the outer column ?? If so, it FAILED.
This pic really tell and mean NOTHING, except it is possible to use it to fool people who have lived in cartoon world all their live. What the pic really show is what happened if a HUGE load is forced on the steel truss. No sagging. No inward pulling. And in fact it also show how unbelivenble strong the wtc trusses were. 700°C !! NOTHING happened.
Tell you another thing. I am a construction worker. I know very well how things works in real world out there.
So, what was this pic supposed to support ? Nist theory of magically 50 inch sagged trusses ? And inward pull on the outer column ?? If so, it FAILED.
This pic really tell and mean NOTHING, except it is possible to use it to fool people who have lived in cartoon world all their live. What the pic really show is what happened if a HUGE load is forced on the steel truss. No sagging. No inward pulling. And in fact it also show how unbelivenble strong the wtc trusses were. 700°C !! NOTHING happened.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 16 2007, 04:37 AM)
700°C !! NOTHING happened.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 14 2007, 09:05 PM)
Well then you're as BLIND as our lying pal Quick.
But KEEP telling people it didn't go as planned, it just makes you look even MORE foolish (as if that's possible)
Arthur
adoucette, you are wrong, as usual, Mr. Radar Non-expert.
(Is it tough making a living on shill wages?)
That is a reflection of a fire truck, you blind-as-a-bat shill (in more ways than one).
It's as plain as day for anyone to see:
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
The Hlava video is a fraud, just like you and your OCT.
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 HAS NOT THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE THE LIFE
But KEEP telling people it didn't go as planned, it just makes you look even MORE foolish (as if that's possible)
Arthur
adoucette, you are wrong, as usual, Mr. Radar Non-expert.
(Is it tough making a living on shill wages?) That is a reflection of a fire truck, you blind-as-a-bat shill (in more ways than one).
It's as plain as day for anyone to see:
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
The Hlava video is a fraud, just like you and your OCT.
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 HAS NOT THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE THE LIFE
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2007, 03:21 PM)
SFRM is not structural, so the trusses will react essentially the same with or without SFRM, just FASTER without.
You obviously wouldn't be satisfied unless they built another tower and ran a jet into it.
SO, keep on beating this dead horse,
But,
Get used to disappointment.
Arthur
If that were true why did they run 4 TEST?
Why do they even require the fire rating TEST (with different truss designs) if it is so easy to predict what will happen?
Why would they run test with different thickness SFRM if it is just slower with more SFRM?
I'm having fun pointing out all the BS you have been writing (if that is beating a dead horse, fine) .
And no ,I am not disappointed because people are waking up to all the lies being told by OCT apologist.
You obviously wouldn't be satisfied unless they built another tower and ran a jet into it.
SO, keep on beating this dead horse,
But,
Get used to disappointment.
Arthur
If that were true why did they run 4 TEST?
Why do they even require the fire rating TEST (with different truss designs) if it is so easy to predict what will happen?
Why would they run test with different thickness SFRM if it is just slower with more SFRM?
I'm having fun pointing out all the BS you have been writing (if that is beating a dead horse, fine) .
And no ,I am not disappointed because people are waking up to all the lies being told by OCT apologist.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 15 2007, 09:10 PM)
This is suggestive but inconclusive. We ought to remain unconvinced until brain scans are performed to demonstrate that she really has a reptilian brain.
oh yeah, and, gordon's paper is real good at debunking bazant's semi-sophisticated lie.
Dr. Bazant has stated in his analysis, that his energy ratio would be increased in the event
of early failure of the column end connections. This is correct and examination of the
debris pile with specific regard for the numbered and identifiable columns from the area
in and around the aircraft impact area could have given more precise information from a
physical rather than a theoretical source.
The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid
a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the
collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot
be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result
of aircraft impact and subsequent fires. It does however allow the authors of the NIST
report to pass responsibility to Dr. Bazant for this, the most important part of the
investigation.
A theory which can be so easily refuted is not an adequate foundation on which to
rest the conclusions of a report on an event with such far reaching global
consequences.
But since NIST relies upon the work of Dr. Bazant to justify their assertion that
collapse, once initiated, would inevitably progress to ground level, this refutation of
Dr. Bazant's work and theory also serves as a refutation of this most crucial part of
the NIST report.
and, meanwhile, back at buckingham palace.....
and, meanwhile, back at buckingham palace.....
It is clear that Diana knew about the true nature of the royal family’s genetic history and the reptilian control. Her nicknames for the Windsors were “the lizards” and “the reptiles”
and she used to say in all seriousness: “They’re not human”. There is a very good
reason for Diana using this description of the Windsors. As her deprogramming
continued, Arizona Wilder remembered clearly a ritual she attended at Clarence House,
the Queen Mother’s home near to Buckingham Palace, in which Diana was shown who
the Windsors really are. It took place in the first seven days of July 1981, just before
Diana and Charles were married on the 29th. This period is the last seven days of the
cycle of the Oak Tree, according to esoteric law, and the ritual was called The
Awakening of the Bride. This is a ritual for all females of the 13 bloodlines who are
going to be in publicly high positions and marry reptilians to produce the new
generation of rulers. Arizona says that the Queen Mother, the Queen, Prince Philip,
Lady Fermoy, Diana’s father Earl Spencer, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles
were all present when Diana was brought into the room. She was wearing a white gown
and a drug had been administered by Lady Fermoy. Diana was told that she should
consider her union with Prince Charles as only a means to produce heirs and nothing
else. Camilla Parker-Bowles was his consort, not her. Arizona says that Prince Philip
and the Queen Mother then shape-shifted into reptiles to show Diana who they really
were. ‘Diana was terrified, but quiet’, she said. Diana was told that if she ever revealed
the truth about them, she would be killed. (Remember the guy I mentioned who had a
call from Diana in the March before she died asking for his advice on how to reveal
451
information about the royals that would ‘shake the world’?) The Queen Mother told
Diana at the ritual that “all ears” would be listening to everything she said and “all
eyes” would forever be watching her. This is the classic ‘nowhere to run’ bind imposed
on all mind controlled slaves. Does anyone believe, therefore, that they would allow
Diana into the clutches of Mohamed Al Fayed if he was not under their control? The
ritual also involved the use of a golden penis (Osiris symbolism) which was used on
Diana to signify the ‘opening of the womb’. Arizona says it was of reptilian shape and
size and had needle-like protrusions designed to superficially puncture the walls of the
vagina and cause bleeding. Diana was told that after this ritual, she would never be
“honoured” again by attending their rituals and she was not to ask questions about
them. Now do people understand why Diana suffered from bulimia and serious
emotional problems from the time she married Charles?
it seems diana was the source of the reptile rumour.
What a load of bull!!!
NOTHING happened?
You're ignoring the SAG in the beam, dimwit!
When was the last time you saw CONCRETE sag like that?!?
If the CONCRETE DOESN'T SAG and the TRUSS BELOW IT SAGS, then NOTHING IS HOLDING UP THE CONCRETE and IT FAILS!!!
Daru - I explained it earlier in a long, patient post. This recent cr@p tells me that you aren't interested in learning the real truth about what happened, you're just a SHILL for the LIARS who want to blame 9/11 on the VICTIMS.
And QUICK - What firetruck!?! You're halicinating, that's a red blotch at the top of the guy's rear windshield. If it were a firetruck, it'd be in the air above the car. If you look at his tail-lights, there are red blotches there, too. It's an "ARTIFACT" of the JPEG compression scheme, you loose resolution when it compresses the image.
Shape-shifting lizards...
Newton, I'm curious as to why you would post this. Were you worried that you might be developing *some* credibility in this forum and wanted to take decisive action to prevent that from happening?
What a load of bull!!!
NOTHING happened?
You're ignoring the SAG in the beam, dimwit!
When was the last time you saw CONCRETE sag like that?!?
If the CONCRETE DOESN'T SAG and the TRUSS BELOW IT SAGS, then NOTHING IS HOLDING UP THE CONCRETE and IT FAILS!!!
This coming from a simpleton that thinks detached trusses can pull a wall-in .
Also, let's recognize that we shouldn't expect that a floor would collapse all at once, but would tend to fail piecemeal. If the brackets holding the trusses to the core were identical to those holding them to the perimeter columns, then the ones subjected to more heat would tend to fail first.
I'm thinking that the brackets at the core would've failed first, leaving the floor supported at the perimeter but not at the core, and that would pull the perimeter columns inward, all at once, immediately following the failure of the core brackets.
Thoughts?
Try and find someone else that agrees with your BS (besides Grumpster who will agree with any OCT post).
Sorry, I thought the point was obvious.
In the as-designed floor system, the trusses support the floor and the brackets support the trusses. All forces are straight down. That's how the system was intended to work, and that's how the components of that system were designed to work - countering gravity, period.
When trusses sag, they aren't flat like the concrete they're designed to be supporting. That's unsupported four-inch-thick concrete. It wasn't designed to be supported only at the edge, so it's going to crack and fail.
The trusses, sagging, are now more like chains than struts, so they're exerting tension on the brackets, and via the brackets, the perimeter columns and the core columns. None of these were designed to resist tension, remember? They were just designed to handle straight-down loads.
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter, that area acting like a chimney/foundry fire, with air coming from below meeting fuel-rich smoke coming in laterally from the floor-fire, and exiting up the core like a chimney, the core would be the hottest part of the fire. So those brackets on the core side would tend to fail first, before the brackets on the perimeter wall side.
As I'd said before, I'd expect the floors to fail piecemeal, rather than as a single entity, as they're 600x thinner than they are wide, you really shouldn't expect them to maintain their structural integrity. We aren't talking about "slabs" of concrete, they're big in area and thin, maybe "wafer" would be a better descriptor than "slab".
So when core-side bracket start to fail, parts of the floor would start to fall, local to the failed brackets. So the floors would start to collapse nearest the core first, while still hanging onto the perimeter walls, so you'd have the weight of the floor pulling in at the perimeter brackets.
I'm not saying that this weight was the sole reason that the perimeter walls pulled in, I said that this would tend to pull them in more-so than just the sagging trusses alone would've pulled them in. They didn't just fold in from this tension, remember, they were helping support the upper section and those columns were already stressed to the max from having so many of them severed in the impact. The ones remaining on each side of the gaping hole were grossly overloaded and bound to fail sooner or later. This just made it worse.
If you're having trouble understanding the principle, I suggest you try the following:
Take an empty soda can, one that's as pristine as you can find, and place it on a flat surface. Now, carefully, put your foot on it and slowly transfer your weight to it. It should be capable of supporting your entire weight. Now take your finger and tap the side of the can, and let us all know what happens next.
Sorry, I thought the point was obvious.
In the as-designed floor system, the trusses support the floor and the brackets support the trusses. All forces are straight down. That's how the system was intended to work, and that's how the components of that system were designed to work - countering gravity, period.
When trusses sag, they aren't flat like the concrete they're designed to be supporting. That's unsupported four-inch-thick concrete. It wasn't designed to be supported only at the edge, so it's going to crack and fail.
The trusses, sagging, are now more like chains than struts, so they're exerting tension on the brackets, and via the brackets, the perimeter columns and the core columns. None of these were designed to resist tension, remember? They were just designed to handle straight-down loads.
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter, that area acting like a chimney/foundry fire, with air coming from below meeting fuel-rich smoke coming in laterally from the floor-fire, and exiting up the core like a chimney, the core would be the hottest part of the fire. So those brackets on the core side would tend to fail first, before the brackets on the perimeter wall side.
As I'd said before, I'd expect the floors to fail piecemeal, rather than as a single entity, as they're 600x thinner than they are wide, you really shouldn't expect them to maintain their structural integrity. We aren't talking about "slabs" of concrete, they're big in area and thin, maybe "wafer" would be a better descriptor than "slab".
So when core-side bracket start to fail, parts of the floor would start to fall, local to the failed brackets. So the floors would start to collapse nearest the core first, while still hanging onto the perimeter walls, so you'd have the weight of the floor pulling in at the perimeter brackets.
I'm not saying that this weight was the sole reason that the perimeter walls pulled in, I said that this would tend to pull them in more-so than just the sagging trusses alone would've pulled them in. They didn't just fold in from this tension, remember, they were helping support the upper section and those columns were already stressed to the max from having so many of them severed in the impact. The ones remaining on each side of the gaping hole were grossly overloaded and bound to fail sooner or later. This just made it worse.
If you're having trouble understanding the principle, I suggest you try the following:
Take an empty soda can, one that's as pristine as you can find, and place it on a flat surface. Now, carefully, put your foot on it and slowly transfer your weight to it. It should be capable of supporting your entire weight. Now take your finger and tap the side of the can, and let us all know what happens next.
Try and find someone else that agrees with your BS (besides Grumpster who will agree with any OCT post).
Reaso - Try to find someone here who doesn't think you're an idiot (besides people who believe in shape-shifting reptiles).
I'm happy to have Grumpy's support (when I do have it), he uses his head and his common sense, something you CDiots really need to work on.
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf
...
As part of NIST’s investigation, Underwriters Laboratories performed additional tests to establish the fire resistance of models of the WTC floor assemblies. The results were that the floor assembly models not only didn’t collapse, invalidating the longstanding “Pancake Theory”, but the floors barely sagged – only about 3 inches, despite the use of double the known floor load and two hours of fire exposure (i.e. over twice the duration of fires known to have existed in the failure zones).13 NIST then added this 3 inch sag to their computer model, and by way of an unknown transformation, it suddenly became 42 inches of extreme sagging.14
At this point it is difficult to continue, but since our own futures depend on this story, we must.
Step six says that sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward. To support this, NIST plugged at least nine different scenarios into their computer, with just one of these showing inward bowing in their virtual reality. To do this, they had to take a computer mock-up of a nine story high by nine column wide wall section, remove it from it’s web of support by “disconnection”, strip off ALL the fireproofing, expose this section to twice the known fire time yet again (90 minutes), and then apply some unspecified, utterly miraculous inward pull.15
Without a doubt, one rarely finds more shameful and obvious examples of the distortion of science.
...
www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf
Period.
Shape-shifting lizards...
Newton, I'm curious as to why you would post this. Were you worried that you might be developing *some* credibility in this forum and wanted to take decisive action to prevent that from happening?
maybe i'm a shape shifting reptillian.
arthur asked what i thought about it. i said i don't invest much in the theory, and then i showed the source of the rumour.
arizona wilder, and diana are the source.
i'm not worried about my credibility. i think information can stand or fall with or without me.
finally an OCT who sees it. the hotter metal is the weaker metal.
the heat distribution graphs from NIST show the core was relatively cool. the hottest spots were on the floors, and interestingly, one corner, presumably where the wreckage was piled, and the office furnishings that were bulldozed there by the plane.
but the perimeter(except for that one corner), AND the core were both cooler than the floors(according to NIST's simulation), and therefore, the floor trusses. so once again, how does the thinner, weakened steel pull in the thicker less weakened steel?
maybe i should point out, too, that buckled steel still gives resistance. there is a tendency for 'failure' to be accepted as 'zero structural strength left'.
I never claimed to be a NIST-supporter, I'm not the "team-player" sort. If 99% of what they did was right, then they have 99% of my support.
From Day-One, I've said that I felt that their fire model was a bit too simplistic in its assumptions, that fire is chaotic, and that fact wasn't acknowledged in their report (not explicitly, at least). I think the fires burned hotter than their report says, and I'd expect that the fires were hotter closer to the core for the chimney/fresh-air-from-below reasons I described earlier.
I think that the core was subject to the most heat, followed by the ceilings, which had the weakest links - the floor trusses.
That structure relied on all the structural members to work in order for the building to stand, and when one of those failed, the rest were doomed to follow. The floor trusses were integral to the viability of the structure, and being the thinnest and the weakest, it's natural that they'd be the first to go. All arguments that claim that "they were weak, therefore their contribution was insignificant" are simply wrong. Any sag at all shows that they were no longer contributing to the structure in their designed-capacity. Anyone who argues that a sagging truss is no problem is displaying a lack of understanding of how things work.
Another thing is that's bothering me is the failure of people to realize that immediately prior to the collapse, the structure was barely capable of holding up the load above, and that at the very point of collapse, it was still capable of *ALMOST* supporting its load. People make the assumption that it was in one state before, and a completely different state after, and that there had to be an obvious change between the before and after state. The structure went from being capable of supporting the 150,000,000 pounds of load (upper floors) to 149,999,999 pounds, and that was when the structure started to fall. You can't visualize the difference between a structure capable of supporting 150,000,000 pounds and one capable of supporting 149,999,999? No one can. No one's visualization capability has nine-digit accuracy. But the physics is clear, if the load is 150,000,000 pounds and the structure supplies 149,999,999, then that mass is under acceleration.
Geometry does the rest.
Try that soda can experiment, if you're interested in the relevance of side forces to load-bearing capacity. One tap on the side of the can, and the can crushes.
BTW, I don't know about how physicists define "failure" but from what I understand, if a structure isn't holding its load, it's "in-failure". Buildings are supposed to keep standing, and if they're moving, no matter how slow, they're "failing", even if it might take another year (or ten) to collapse. That's my understanding of the language.
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf
...
As part of NIST’s investigation, Underwriters Laboratories performed additional tests to establish the fire resistance of models of the WTC floor assemblies. The results were that the floor assembly models not only didn’t collapse, invalidating the longstanding “Pancake Theory”, but the floors barely sagged – blah, blah, blah
Did you miss the footnotes?
*Imminent collapse
**Vertical displacement exceeded capability to measure accurately
You also fail to appreicate the effects of scale.
In addition, the floor assemblies were not damaged in any way, something you can not say about the floors in the impact zone where the collapse initiated.
try again.
oh yeah, and, gordon's paper is real good at debunking bazant's semi-sophisticated lie.
QUOTE
Dr. Bazant has stated in his analysis, that his energy ratio would be increased in the event
of early failure of the column end connections. This is correct and examination of the
debris pile with specific regard for the numbered and identifiable columns from the area
in and around the aircraft impact area could have given more precise information from a
physical rather than a theoretical source.
The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid
a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the
collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot
be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result
of aircraft impact and subsequent fires. It does however allow the authors of the NIST
report to pass responsibility to Dr. Bazant for this, the most important part of the
investigation.
A theory which can be so easily refuted is not an adequate foundation on which to
rest the conclusions of a report on an event with such far reaching global
consequences.
But since NIST relies upon the work of Dr. Bazant to justify their assertion that
collapse, once initiated, would inevitably progress to ground level, this refutation of
Dr. Bazant's work and theory also serves as a refutation of this most crucial part of
the NIST report.
and, meanwhile, back at buckingham palace.....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Dr. Bazant has stated in his analysis, that his energy ratio would be increased in the event of early failure of the column end connections. This is correct and examination of the debris pile with specific regard for the numbered and identifiable columns from the area in and around the aircraft impact area could have given more precise information from a physical rather than a theoretical source. The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result of aircraft impact and subsequent fires. It does however allow the authors of the NIST report to pass responsibility to Dr. Bazant for this, the most important part of the investigation. A theory which can be so easily refuted is not an adequate foundation on which to rest the conclusions of a report on an event with such far reaching global consequences. But since NIST relies upon the work of Dr. Bazant to justify their assertion that collapse, once initiated, would inevitably progress to ground level, this refutation of Dr. Bazant's work and theory also serves as a refutation of this most crucial part of the NIST report. |
and, meanwhile, back at buckingham palace.....
It is clear that Diana knew about the true nature of the royal family’s genetic history and the reptilian control. Her nicknames for the Windsors were “the lizards” and “the reptiles”
and she used to say in all seriousness: “They’re not human”. There is a very good
reason for Diana using this description of the Windsors. As her deprogramming
continued, Arizona Wilder remembered clearly a ritual she attended at Clarence House,
the Queen Mother’s home near to Buckingham Palace, in which Diana was shown who
the Windsors really are. It took place in the first seven days of July 1981, just before
Diana and Charles were married on the 29th. This period is the last seven days of the
cycle of the Oak Tree, according to esoteric law, and the ritual was called The
Awakening of the Bride. This is a ritual for all females of the 13 bloodlines who are
going to be in publicly high positions and marry reptilians to produce the new
generation of rulers. Arizona says that the Queen Mother, the Queen, Prince Philip,
Lady Fermoy, Diana’s father Earl Spencer, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles
were all present when Diana was brought into the room. She was wearing a white gown
and a drug had been administered by Lady Fermoy. Diana was told that she should
consider her union with Prince Charles as only a means to produce heirs and nothing
else. Camilla Parker-Bowles was his consort, not her. Arizona says that Prince Philip
and the Queen Mother then shape-shifted into reptiles to show Diana who they really
were. ‘Diana was terrified, but quiet’, she said. Diana was told that if she ever revealed
the truth about them, she would be killed. (Remember the guy I mentioned who had a
call from Diana in the March before she died asking for his advice on how to reveal
451
information about the royals that would ‘shake the world’?) The Queen Mother told
Diana at the ritual that “all ears” would be listening to everything she said and “all
eyes” would forever be watching her. This is the classic ‘nowhere to run’ bind imposed
on all mind controlled slaves. Does anyone believe, therefore, that they would allow
Diana into the clutches of Mohamed Al Fayed if he was not under their control? The
ritual also involved the use of a golden penis (Osiris symbolism) which was used on
Diana to signify the ‘opening of the womb’. Arizona says it was of reptilian shape and
size and had needle-like protrusions designed to superficially puncture the walls of the
vagina and cause bleeding. Diana was told that after this ritual, she would never be
“honoured” again by attending their rituals and she was not to ask questions about
them. Now do people understand why Diana suffered from bulimia and serious
emotional problems from the time she married Charles?
it seems diana was the source of the reptile rumour.
QUOTE
people are waking up to all the lies being told
What a load of bull!!!
NOTHING happened?
You're ignoring the SAG in the beam, dimwit!
When was the last time you saw CONCRETE sag like that?!?
If the CONCRETE DOESN'T SAG and the TRUSS BELOW IT SAGS, then NOTHING IS HOLDING UP THE CONCRETE and IT FAILS!!!
Daru - I explained it earlier in a long, patient post. This recent cr@p tells me that you aren't interested in learning the real truth about what happened, you're just a SHILL for the LIARS who want to blame 9/11 on the VICTIMS.
And QUICK - What firetruck!?! You're halicinating, that's a red blotch at the top of the guy's rear windshield. If it were a firetruck, it'd be in the air above the car. If you look at his tail-lights, there are red blotches there, too. It's an "ARTIFACT" of the JPEG compression scheme, you loose resolution when it compresses the image.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 16 2007, 07:53 AM)
Arizona says that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother then shape-shifted into reptiles to show Diana who they really were.
This part of the story really stretches credulity. There is no way Elizabeth would've allowed Philip to shape-shift in the presence of Camilla.
This part of the story really stretches credulity. There is no way Elizabeth would've allowed Philip to shape-shift in the presence of Camilla.
QUOTE
QUOTE (newton @ Jun 16 2007, 07:53 AM)
Arizona says that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother then shape-shifted into reptiles to show Diana who they really were.
This part of the story really stretches credulity. There is no way Elizabeth would've allowed Philip to shape-shift in the presence of Camilla.
Arizona says that Prince Philip and the Queen Mother then shape-shifted into reptiles to show Diana who they really were.
This part of the story really stretches credulity. There is no way Elizabeth would've allowed Philip to shape-shift in the presence of Camilla.
Shape-shifting lizards...
Newton, I'm curious as to why you would post this. Were you worried that you might be developing *some* credibility in this forum and wanted to take decisive action to prevent that from happening?
To return this thread to the topic, I found this interesting compilation of technical, peer reviewed papers about various aspects of 9/11. Now, I haven’t read all of them, but I’m willing to bet that none of them support the “troother’s” positions.
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/...wtc-on-911.html
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/...wtc-on-911.html
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 16 2007, 02:08 AM)
If that were true why did they run 4 TEST?
Why do they even require the fire rating TEST (with different truss designs) if it is so easy to predict what will happen?
Why would they run test with different thickness SFRM if it is just slower with more SFRM?
I'm having fun pointing out all the BS you have been writing (if that is beating a dead horse, fine) .
And no ,I am not disappointed because people are waking up to all the lies being told by OCT apologist.
NOPE.
Once again you just show your ignorance.
If you bothered to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5B you would find that you, as usual, are wrong.
The first 3 tests were all with 3/4" SFRM and 'as applied' in the towers but NIST used one test to show the effect of applying SFRM thicknesses AS SPECIFIED by the designer.
UNLIKE the other tests, in test 4 only 1/2" of SFRM was applied and ONLY to the MAIN trusses. SFRM was not, as in the other tests, applied to the bridging trusses or the metal deck, in fact both areas were MASKED to prevent even SFRM OVERSPRAY from affecting them.
Arthur
Why do they even require the fire rating TEST (with different truss designs) if it is so easy to predict what will happen?
Why would they run test with different thickness SFRM if it is just slower with more SFRM?
I'm having fun pointing out all the BS you have been writing (if that is beating a dead horse, fine) .
And no ,I am not disappointed because people are waking up to all the lies being told by OCT apologist.
NOPE.
Once again you just show your ignorance.
If you bothered to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5B you would find that you, as usual, are wrong.
The first 3 tests were all with 3/4" SFRM and 'as applied' in the towers but NIST used one test to show the effect of applying SFRM thicknesses AS SPECIFIED by the designer.
UNLIKE the other tests, in test 4 only 1/2" of SFRM was applied and ONLY to the MAIN trusses. SFRM was not, as in the other tests, applied to the bridging trusses or the metal deck, in fact both areas were MASKED to prevent even SFRM OVERSPRAY from affecting them.
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 16 2007, 12:00 AM)
What a load of bull!!!
NOTHING happened?
You're ignoring the SAG in the beam, dimwit!
When was the last time you saw CONCRETE sag like that?!?
If the CONCRETE DOESN'T SAG and the TRUSS BELOW IT SAGS, then NOTHING IS HOLDING UP THE CONCRETE and IT FAILS!!!
This coming from a simpleton that thinks detached trusses can pull a wall-in .
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 15 2007, 06:18 PM)
Also, let's recognize that we shouldn't expect that a floor would collapse all at once, but would tend to fail piecemeal. If the brackets holding the trusses to the core were identical to those holding them to the perimeter columns, then the ones subjected to more heat would tend to fail first.
I'm thinking that the brackets at the core would've failed first, leaving the floor supported at the perimeter but not at the core, and that would pull the perimeter columns inward, all at once, immediately following the failure of the core brackets.
Thoughts?
Try and find someone else that agrees with your BS (besides Grumpster who will agree with any OCT post).
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2007, 04:44 AM)
NOPE.
Once again you just show your ignorance.
If you bothered to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5B you would find that you, as usual, are wrong.
The first 3 tests were all with 3/4" SFRM and 'as applied' in the towers but NIST used one test to show the effect of applying SFRM thicknesses AS SPECIFIED by the designer.
UNLIKE the other tests, in test 4 only 1/2" of SFRM was applied and ONLY to the MAIN trusses. SFRM was not, as in the other tests, applied to the bridging trusses or the metal deck, in fact both areas were MASKED to prevent even SFRM OVERSPRAY from affecting them.
Arthur
I guess you don't understand my point.
If it is so easy to predict (as you cliam) NIST only needed to run one test (or two to be scientific)!
Once again you just show your ignorance.
If you bothered to read NIST NCSTAR 1-5B you would find that you, as usual, are wrong.
The first 3 tests were all with 3/4" SFRM and 'as applied' in the towers but NIST used one test to show the effect of applying SFRM thicknesses AS SPECIFIED by the designer.
UNLIKE the other tests, in test 4 only 1/2" of SFRM was applied and ONLY to the MAIN trusses. SFRM was not, as in the other tests, applied to the bridging trusses or the metal deck, in fact both areas were MASKED to prevent even SFRM OVERSPRAY from affecting them.
Arthur
I guess you don't understand my point.
If it is so easy to predict (as you cliam) NIST only needed to run one test (or two to be scientific)!
You would have a point IF the ONLY thing that varied was the SFRM thickness.
But it WASN'T.
They also varied HOW/WHERE applied, so you couldn't just extrapolate for the variaton in SFRM thickness.
The three other tests also varied in OTHER important aspects.
Test one and two compared the impact of a Restrained vs an Unrestrained truss, while the third test evaluated the effect of SCALE on test results (where the unit was half as long but the steel was full size) to see how representative the use of large scale models are.
Arthur
But it WASN'T.
They also varied HOW/WHERE applied, so you couldn't just extrapolate for the variaton in SFRM thickness.
The three other tests also varied in OTHER important aspects.
Test one and two compared the impact of a Restrained vs an Unrestrained truss, while the third test evaluated the effect of SCALE on test results (where the unit was half as long but the steel was full size) to see how representative the use of large scale models are.
Arthur
QUOTE
This coming from a simpleton that thinks detached trusses can pull a wall-in .
Sorry, I thought the point was obvious.
In the as-designed floor system, the trusses support the floor and the brackets support the trusses. All forces are straight down. That's how the system was intended to work, and that's how the components of that system were designed to work - countering gravity, period.
When trusses sag, they aren't flat like the concrete they're designed to be supporting. That's unsupported four-inch-thick concrete. It wasn't designed to be supported only at the edge, so it's going to crack and fail.
The trusses, sagging, are now more like chains than struts, so they're exerting tension on the brackets, and via the brackets, the perimeter columns and the core columns. None of these were designed to resist tension, remember? They were just designed to handle straight-down loads.
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter, that area acting like a chimney/foundry fire, with air coming from below meeting fuel-rich smoke coming in laterally from the floor-fire, and exiting up the core like a chimney, the core would be the hottest part of the fire. So those brackets on the core side would tend to fail first, before the brackets on the perimeter wall side.
As I'd said before, I'd expect the floors to fail piecemeal, rather than as a single entity, as they're 600x thinner than they are wide, you really shouldn't expect them to maintain their structural integrity. We aren't talking about "slabs" of concrete, they're big in area and thin, maybe "wafer" would be a better descriptor than "slab".
So when core-side bracket start to fail, parts of the floor would start to fall, local to the failed brackets. So the floors would start to collapse nearest the core first, while still hanging onto the perimeter walls, so you'd have the weight of the floor pulling in at the perimeter brackets.
I'm not saying that this weight was the sole reason that the perimeter walls pulled in, I said that this would tend to pull them in more-so than just the sagging trusses alone would've pulled them in. They didn't just fold in from this tension, remember, they were helping support the upper section and those columns were already stressed to the max from having so many of them severed in the impact. The ones remaining on each side of the gaping hole were grossly overloaded and bound to fail sooner or later. This just made it worse.
If you're having trouble understanding the principle, I suggest you try the following:
Take an empty soda can, one that's as pristine as you can find, and place it on a flat surface. Now, carefully, put your foot on it and slowly transfer your weight to it. It should be capable of supporting your entire weight. Now take your finger and tap the side of the can, and let us all know what happens next.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This coming from a simpleton that thinks detached trusses can pull a wall-in . |
Sorry, I thought the point was obvious.
In the as-designed floor system, the trusses support the floor and the brackets support the trusses. All forces are straight down. That's how the system was intended to work, and that's how the components of that system were designed to work - countering gravity, period.
When trusses sag, they aren't flat like the concrete they're designed to be supporting. That's unsupported four-inch-thick concrete. It wasn't designed to be supported only at the edge, so it's going to crack and fail.
The trusses, sagging, are now more like chains than struts, so they're exerting tension on the brackets, and via the brackets, the perimeter columns and the core columns. None of these were designed to resist tension, remember? They were just designed to handle straight-down loads.
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter, that area acting like a chimney/foundry fire, with air coming from below meeting fuel-rich smoke coming in laterally from the floor-fire, and exiting up the core like a chimney, the core would be the hottest part of the fire. So those brackets on the core side would tend to fail first, before the brackets on the perimeter wall side.
As I'd said before, I'd expect the floors to fail piecemeal, rather than as a single entity, as they're 600x thinner than they are wide, you really shouldn't expect them to maintain their structural integrity. We aren't talking about "slabs" of concrete, they're big in area and thin, maybe "wafer" would be a better descriptor than "slab".
So when core-side bracket start to fail, parts of the floor would start to fall, local to the failed brackets. So the floors would start to collapse nearest the core first, while still hanging onto the perimeter walls, so you'd have the weight of the floor pulling in at the perimeter brackets.
I'm not saying that this weight was the sole reason that the perimeter walls pulled in, I said that this would tend to pull them in more-so than just the sagging trusses alone would've pulled them in. They didn't just fold in from this tension, remember, they were helping support the upper section and those columns were already stressed to the max from having so many of them severed in the impact. The ones remaining on each side of the gaping hole were grossly overloaded and bound to fail sooner or later. This just made it worse.
If you're having trouble understanding the principle, I suggest you try the following:
Take an empty soda can, one that's as pristine as you can find, and place it on a flat surface. Now, carefully, put your foot on it and slowly transfer your weight to it. It should be capable of supporting your entire weight. Now take your finger and tap the side of the can, and let us all know what happens next.
Try and find someone else that agrees with your BS (besides Grumpster who will agree with any OCT post).
Reaso - Try to find someone here who doesn't think you're an idiot (besides people who believe in shape-shifting reptiles).
I'm happy to have Grumpy's support (when I do have it), he uses his head and his common sense, something you CDiots really need to work on.
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf
...
As part of NIST’s investigation, Underwriters Laboratories performed additional tests to establish the fire resistance of models of the WTC floor assemblies. The results were that the floor assembly models not only didn’t collapse, invalidating the longstanding “Pancake Theory”, but the floors barely sagged – only about 3 inches, despite the use of double the known floor load and two hours of fire exposure (i.e. over twice the duration of fires known to have existed in the failure zones).13 NIST then added this 3 inch sag to their computer model, and by way of an unknown transformation, it suddenly became 42 inches of extreme sagging.14
At this point it is difficult to continue, but since our own futures depend on this story, we must.
Step six says that sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward. To support this, NIST plugged at least nine different scenarios into their computer, with just one of these showing inward bowing in their virtual reality. To do this, they had to take a computer mock-up of a nine story high by nine column wide wall section, remove it from it’s web of support by “disconnection”, strip off ALL the fireproofing, expose this section to twice the known fire time yet again (90 minutes), and then apply some unspecified, utterly miraculous inward pull.15
Without a doubt, one rarely finds more shameful and obvious examples of the distortion of science.
...
www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf
Period.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 16 2007, 09:18 AM)
Shape-shifting lizards...
Newton, I'm curious as to why you would post this. Were you worried that you might be developing *some* credibility in this forum and wanted to take decisive action to prevent that from happening?
maybe i'm a shape shifting reptillian.
arthur asked what i thought about it. i said i don't invest much in the theory, and then i showed the source of the rumour.
arizona wilder, and diana are the source.
i'm not worried about my credibility. i think information can stand or fall with or without me.
QUOTE
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter
finally an OCT who sees it. the hotter metal is the weaker metal.
the heat distribution graphs from NIST show the core was relatively cool. the hottest spots were on the floors, and interestingly, one corner, presumably where the wreckage was piled, and the office furnishings that were bulldozed there by the plane.
but the perimeter(except for that one corner), AND the core were both cooler than the floors(according to NIST's simulation), and therefore, the floor trusses. so once again, how does the thinner, weakened steel pull in the thicker less weakened steel?
maybe i should point out, too, that buckled steel still gives resistance. there is a tendency for 'failure' to be accepted as 'zero structural strength left'.
QUOTE
the heat distribution graphs from NIST show the core was relatively cool. the hottest spots were on the floors, and interestingly, one corner, presumably where the wreckage was piled, and the office furnishings that were bulldozed there by the plane.
but the perimeter(except for that one corner), AND the core were both cooler than the floors(according to NIST's simulation), and therefore, the floor trusses. so once again, how does the thinner, weakened steel pull in the thicker less weakened steel?
maybe i should point out, too, that buckled steel still gives resistance. there is a tendency for 'failure' to be accepted as 'zero structural strength left'.
but the perimeter(except for that one corner), AND the core were both cooler than the floors(according to NIST's simulation), and therefore, the floor trusses. so once again, how does the thinner, weakened steel pull in the thicker less weakened steel?
maybe i should point out, too, that buckled steel still gives resistance. there is a tendency for 'failure' to be accepted as 'zero structural strength left'.
I never claimed to be a NIST-supporter, I'm not the "team-player" sort. If 99% of what they did was right, then they have 99% of my support.
From Day-One, I've said that I felt that their fire model was a bit too simplistic in its assumptions, that fire is chaotic, and that fact wasn't acknowledged in their report (not explicitly, at least). I think the fires burned hotter than their report says, and I'd expect that the fires were hotter closer to the core for the chimney/fresh-air-from-below reasons I described earlier.
I think that the core was subject to the most heat, followed by the ceilings, which had the weakest links - the floor trusses.
That structure relied on all the structural members to work in order for the building to stand, and when one of those failed, the rest were doomed to follow. The floor trusses were integral to the viability of the structure, and being the thinnest and the weakest, it's natural that they'd be the first to go. All arguments that claim that "they were weak, therefore their contribution was insignificant" are simply wrong. Any sag at all shows that they were no longer contributing to the structure in their designed-capacity. Anyone who argues that a sagging truss is no problem is displaying a lack of understanding of how things work.
Another thing is that's bothering me is the failure of people to realize that immediately prior to the collapse, the structure was barely capable of holding up the load above, and that at the very point of collapse, it was still capable of *ALMOST* supporting its load. People make the assumption that it was in one state before, and a completely different state after, and that there had to be an obvious change between the before and after state. The structure went from being capable of supporting the 150,000,000 pounds of load (upper floors) to 149,999,999 pounds, and that was when the structure started to fall. You can't visualize the difference between a structure capable of supporting 150,000,000 pounds and one capable of supporting 149,999,999? No one can. No one's visualization capability has nine-digit accuracy. But the physics is clear, if the load is 150,000,000 pounds and the structure supplies 149,999,999, then that mass is under acceleration.
Geometry does the rest.
Try that soda can experiment, if you're interested in the relevance of side forces to load-bearing capacity. One tap on the side of the can, and the can crushes.
BTW, I don't know about how physicists define "failure" but from what I understand, if a structure isn't holding its load, it's "in-failure". Buildings are supposed to keep standing, and if they're moving, no matter how slow, they're "failing", even if it might take another year (or ten) to collapse. That's my understanding of the language.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 16 2007, 09:32 AM)
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf
...
As part of NIST’s investigation, Underwriters Laboratories performed additional tests to establish the fire resistance of models of the WTC floor assemblies. The results were that the floor assembly models not only didn’t collapse, invalidating the longstanding “Pancake Theory”, but the floors barely sagged – blah, blah, blah
Did you miss the footnotes?
*Imminent collapse
**Vertical displacement exceeded capability to measure accurately
You also fail to appreicate the effects of scale.
In addition, the floor assemblies were not damaged in any way, something you can not say about the floors in the impact zone where the collapse initiated.
try again.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 16 2007, 08:58 AM)
The trusses, sagging, are now more like chains than struts, so they're exerting tension on the brackets, and via the brackets, the perimeter columns and the core columns. None of these were designed to resist tension, remember? They were just designed to handle straight-down loads.
Don't forget that the trusses and the floors also performed one other valuable structural function. They acted as braces to keep the exterior columns from buckling.
This pinning action was lost when they sagged, thus reducing the ability of the column to resist buckling failure.
Think about this. Leonhard Euler figured all this out back in the 1700's.
Don't forget that the trusses and the floors also performed one other valuable structural function. They acted as braces to keep the exterior columns from buckling.
This pinning action was lost when they sagged, thus reducing the ability of the column to resist buckling failure.
Think about this. Leonhard Euler figured all this out back in the 1700's.
Daru
And I changed a tire on my truck, does that make me an automobile engineer???
And I changed a tire on my truck, does that make me an automobile engineer???
And in fact everbody should read what Kevin is saying. Everything he has said from the beginning has turned out to be the painfull truth.
Except that part where he claimed that UL tested the steel. By the way, that lie is not why Ryan was fired, it was because of his pseudo-scientific babble about 911 and UL not wanting it associated with their reputation that he was summarily canned. After all, water testers are a dime a dozen. Professor Jones had a similar experience at BYU, who probably breathed a sigh of relief in being able to get rid of a useless cold fusion professor with tenior.
notsoquick
No, it is the blurry reflection of the third brake light and the video proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that your paper claiming explosions has inaccurate times of impact and is therefore falsified. The Hlava video is legit, you are a fraud(as is Gordon Ross).
And Jesus STILL doesn't support your taking his name to try to add validity to your lies(Thou shall not take the Lords name in vain). You are still a "Liar-for-Jesus", the lowest kind of slimeball on Earth.
newton
No, it is the blurry reflection of the third brake light and the video proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that your paper claiming explosions has inaccurate times of impact and is therefore falsified. The Hlava video is legit, you are a fraud(as is Gordon Ross).
And Jesus STILL doesn't support your taking his name to try to add validity to your lies(Thou shall not take the Lords name in vain). You are still a "Liar-for-Jesus", the lowest kind of slimeball on Earth.
newton
oh yeah, and, gordon's paper is real good at debunking bazant's semi-sophisticated lie.
Actually Gordon's paper is a mishmash of handwaving with no attempt to discredit Bazant, et al, but directing undeserved criticism at NIST. None of the so-called "Scholars" has submitted a single paper for peer review that has falsified a single point in NIST's reports or the papers of Bazant. Until they do they are, at most, stating their opinions. Given Ross's past opinions, especially the grieviously flawed paper with Furlong about explosions prior to plane impact, Gordon's opinions must be seen as the speculations of the clueless and dismissed...
...as must your's.
Grumpy
Sorry, I thought the point was obvious.
In the as-designed floor system, the trusses support the floor and the brackets support the trusses. All forces are straight down. That's how the system was intended to work, and that's how the components of that system were designed to work - countering gravity, period.
When trusses sag, they aren't flat like the concrete they're designed to be supporting. That's unsupported four-inch-thick concrete. It wasn't designed to be supported only at the edge, so it's going to crack and fail.
The trusses, sagging, are now more like chains than struts, so they're exerting tension on the brackets, and via the brackets, the perimeter columns and the core columns. None of these were designed to resist tension, remember? They were just designed to handle straight-down loads.
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter, that area acting like a chimney/foundry fire, with air coming from below meeting fuel-rich smoke coming in laterally from the floor-fire, and exiting up the core like a chimney, the core would be the hottest part of the fire. So those brackets on the core side would tend to fail first, before the brackets on the perimeter wall side.
As I'd said before, I'd expect the floors to fail piecemeal, rather than as a single entity, as they're 600x thinner than they are wide, you really shouldn't expect them to maintain their structural integrity. We aren't talking about "slabs" of concrete, they're big in area and thin, maybe "wafer" would be a better descriptor than "slab".
So when core-side bracket start to fail, parts of the floor would start to fall, local to the failed brackets. So the floors would start to collapse nearest the core first, while still hanging onto the perimeter walls, so you'd have the weight of the floor pulling in at the perimeter brackets.
I'm not saying that this weight was the sole reason that the perimeter walls pulled in, I said that this would tend to pull them in more-so than just the sagging trusses alone would've pulled them in. They didn't just fold in from this tension, remember, they were helping support the upper section and those columns were already stressed to the max from having so many of them severed in the impact. The ones remaining on each side of the gaping hole were grossly overloaded and bound to fail sooner or later. This just made it worse.
If you're having trouble understanding the principle, I suggest you try the following:
Take an empty soda can, one that's as pristine as you can find, and place it on a flat surface. Now, carefully, put your foot on it and slowly transfer your weight to it. It should be capable of supporting your entire weight. Now take your finger and tap the side of the can, and let us all know what happens next.
Reaso - Try to find someone here who doesn't think you're an idiot (besides people who believe in shape-shifting reptiles).
I'm happy to have Grumpy's support (when I do have it), he uses his head and his common sense, something you CDiots really need to work on.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Good for you genius, you just debunked the NIST!
Lets see what your OCT buddies think about that (we have a closet "troother").
If a truss is detached at one end it is not going to pull-in a wall.
If you add mass to the floor truss assembly (trusses go both directions to redistribute the load) because of bracket failure at the core , the force will be (almost all) vertical in the downward direction (wrong direction to pull in the walls ).
I was trying to say the same thing, without the Euler reference. (Half the people I know don't remember when Robin Williams was funny, much less being familiar with anything written in the 18th century.)
That's what I said. It wasn't necessary for the trusses to remain attached to the core, though, in order for them to pull the perimeter columns inward.
And, as I said before, explicitly, the fact that the floor trusses were pulling inwards on the perimeter columns wasn't the only force causing them to buckle inwards - they were loaded beyond capacity attempting to bear the extra loading caused by the impact damage, which forced the adjacent perimeter columns to support more than they were ever intended to bear.
This would be easy for you to grasp if you merely tried the simple soda-can experiment I described. Simply stand on a pristine (empty) soda can, and tap the side. It will collapse after you tap it, not because the tap crushes the can, but because the tap initiates unfavorable geometry in the can leading to its ultimate failure.
NOBODY, NOT NIST, NOT ME, ever said the columns' buckling inward was due SOLELY to the inward force exerted by the floor trusses. NOBODY. You read it wrong. Like the tap on the side of the soda can, when you have a structure under a load that's close to its limit strength, it doesn't take much to initiate total failure. That's what happened at the WTC.
Not bombs, not explosives, just a structure that was compromised by impact and further weakened by fire.
At some point, the cumulative effect of all that'd happened weakened the structure such that it was only holding up 149,999,999 pounds of the 150,000,000 pound load above it. Then it fell.
QUOTE
Tell you another thing. I am a construction worker. I know very well how things works in real world out there.
And I changed a tire on my truck, does that make me an automobile engineer???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tell you another thing. I am a construction worker. I know very well how things works in real world out there. |
And I changed a tire on my truck, does that make me an automobile engineer???
And in fact everbody should read what Kevin is saying. Everything he has said from the beginning has turned out to be the painfull truth.
Except that part where he claimed that UL tested the steel. By the way, that lie is not why Ryan was fired, it was because of his pseudo-scientific babble about 911 and UL not wanting it associated with their reputation that he was summarily canned. After all, water testers are a dime a dozen. Professor Jones had a similar experience at BYU, who probably breathed a sigh of relief in being able to get rid of a useless cold fusion professor with tenior.
notsoquick
QUOTE
adoucette, you are wrong, as usual, Mr. Radar Non-expert.
laugh.gif (Is it tough making a living on shill wages?) laugh.gif
That is a reflection of a fire truck, you blind-as-a-bat shill (in more ways than one).
It's as plain as day for anyone to see:
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
The Hlava video is a fraud, just like you and your OCT.
laugh.gif (Is it tough making a living on shill wages?) laugh.gif
That is a reflection of a fire truck, you blind-as-a-bat shill (in more ways than one).
It's as plain as day for anyone to see:
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
The Hlava video is a fraud, just like you and your OCT.
No, it is the blurry reflection of the third brake light and the video proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that your paper claiming explosions has inaccurate times of impact and is therefore falsified. The Hlava video is legit, you are a fraud(as is Gordon Ross).
And Jesus STILL doesn't support your taking his name to try to add validity to your lies(Thou shall not take the Lords name in vain). You are still a "Liar-for-Jesus", the lowest kind of slimeball on Earth.
newton
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| adoucette, you are wrong, as usual, Mr. Radar Non-expert. laugh.gif (Is it tough making a living on shill wages?) laugh.gif That is a reflection of a fire truck, you blind-as-a-bat shill (in more ways than one). It's as plain as day for anyone to see: http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm The Hlava video is a fraud, just like you and your OCT. |
No, it is the blurry reflection of the third brake light and the video proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that your paper claiming explosions has inaccurate times of impact and is therefore falsified. The Hlava video is legit, you are a fraud(as is Gordon Ross).
And Jesus STILL doesn't support your taking his name to try to add validity to your lies(Thou shall not take the Lords name in vain). You are still a "Liar-for-Jesus", the lowest kind of slimeball on Earth.
newton
oh yeah, and, gordon's paper is real good at debunking bazant's semi-sophisticated lie.
Actually Gordon's paper is a mishmash of handwaving with no attempt to discredit Bazant, et al, but directing undeserved criticism at NIST. None of the so-called "Scholars" has submitted a single paper for peer review that has falsified a single point in NIST's reports or the papers of Bazant. Until they do they are, at most, stating their opinions. Given Ross's past opinions, especially the grieviously flawed paper with Furlong about explosions prior to plane impact, Gordon's opinions must be seen as the speculations of the clueless and dismissed...
QUOTE
and, meanwhile, back at buckingham palace.....
...as must your's.
Grumpy
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 16 2007, 06:58 AM)
Sorry, I thought the point was obvious.
In the as-designed floor system, the trusses support the floor and the brackets support the trusses. All forces are straight down. That's how the system was intended to work, and that's how the components of that system were designed to work - countering gravity, period.
When trusses sag, they aren't flat like the concrete they're designed to be supporting. That's unsupported four-inch-thick concrete. It wasn't designed to be supported only at the edge, so it's going to crack and fail.
The trusses, sagging, are now more like chains than struts, so they're exerting tension on the brackets, and via the brackets, the perimeter columns and the core columns. None of these were designed to resist tension, remember? They were just designed to handle straight-down loads.
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter, that area acting like a chimney/foundry fire, with air coming from below meeting fuel-rich smoke coming in laterally from the floor-fire, and exiting up the core like a chimney, the core would be the hottest part of the fire. So those brackets on the core side would tend to fail first, before the brackets on the perimeter wall side.
As I'd said before, I'd expect the floors to fail piecemeal, rather than as a single entity, as they're 600x thinner than they are wide, you really shouldn't expect them to maintain their structural integrity. We aren't talking about "slabs" of concrete, they're big in area and thin, maybe "wafer" would be a better descriptor than "slab".
So when core-side bracket start to fail, parts of the floor would start to fall, local to the failed brackets. So the floors would start to collapse nearest the core first, while still hanging onto the perimeter walls, so you'd have the weight of the floor pulling in at the perimeter brackets.
I'm not saying that this weight was the sole reason that the perimeter walls pulled in, I said that this would tend to pull them in more-so than just the sagging trusses alone would've pulled them in. They didn't just fold in from this tension, remember, they were helping support the upper section and those columns were already stressed to the max from having so many of them severed in the impact. The ones remaining on each side of the gaping hole were grossly overloaded and bound to fail sooner or later. This just made it worse.
If you're having trouble understanding the principle, I suggest you try the following:
Take an empty soda can, one that's as pristine as you can find, and place it on a flat surface. Now, carefully, put your foot on it and slowly transfer your weight to it. It should be capable of supporting your entire weight. Now take your finger and tap the side of the can, and let us all know what happens next.
Reaso - Try to find someone here who doesn't think you're an idiot (besides people who believe in shape-shifting reptiles).
I'm happy to have Grumpy's support (when I do have it), he uses his head and his common sense, something you CDiots really need to work on.
QUOTE
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Good for you genius, you just debunked the NIST!
Lets see what your OCT buddies think about that (we have a closet "troother").
If a truss is detached at one end it is not going to pull-in a wall.
If you add mass to the floor truss assembly (trusses go both directions to redistribute the load) because of bracket failure at the core , the force will be (almost all) vertical in the downward direction (wrong direction to pull in the walls ).
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 16 2007, 09:58 AM)
Those brackets will fail sooner or later, and assuming that they're both designed the same, the ones that'll fail first are the ones that are hotter. It's my understanding that the core was hotter than the perimeter, that area acting like a chimney/foundry fire, with air coming from below meeting fuel-rich smoke coming in laterally from the floor-fire, and exiting up the core like a chimney, the core would be the hottest part of the fire. So those brackets on the core side would tend to fail first, before the brackets on the perimeter wall side.
The truss seats were not the same design on the perimeter as they were on the core and though they were all the same design on the perimeter (and core) they still weren't all the same on either.
Their failure modes were based on a number of factors, tension and heat.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chapter 5.
Arthur
The truss seats were not the same design on the perimeter as they were on the core and though they were all the same design on the perimeter (and core) they still weren't all the same on either.
Their failure modes were based on a number of factors, tension and heat.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Chapter 5.
Arthur
reasonlesswhine
NIST says pancaking was not the initiating event, it does not preclude all pancaking from happening. wcelliott is correct that the events of 911 were varied and chaotic, they do not lend themselves to simplistic "this not that" narratives and mathematical representations are, by nature, limited in their ability to describe all the varied processes(unless you own a super computer) so must rely upon simplifications and averaging to produce useful results.
His point about his variance with NIST is still within the realm of the possible. So instead of seeing those points as being in repudiation of the NIST narrative, I see them as filling in the details NIST could not. Whether he is correct or not is a topic worthy of discussion, explosives are not.
Grumpy
NIST says pancaking was not the initiating event, it does not preclude all pancaking from happening. wcelliott is correct that the events of 911 were varied and chaotic, they do not lend themselves to simplistic "this not that" narratives and mathematical representations are, by nature, limited in their ability to describe all the varied processes(unless you own a super computer) so must rely upon simplifications and averaging to produce useful results.
His point about his variance with NIST is still within the realm of the possible. So instead of seeing those points as being in repudiation of the NIST narrative, I see them as filling in the details NIST could not. Whether he is correct or not is a topic worthy of discussion, explosives are not.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Don't forget that the trusses and the floors also performed one other valuable structural function. They acted as braces to keep the exterior columns from buckling.
This pinning action was lost when they sagged, thus reducing the ability of the column to resist buckling failure.
Think about this. Leonhard Euler figured all this out back in the 1700's.
This pinning action was lost when they sagged, thus reducing the ability of the column to resist buckling failure.
Think about this. Leonhard Euler figured all this out back in the 1700's.
I was trying to say the same thing, without the Euler reference. (Half the people I know don't remember when Robin Williams was funny, much less being familiar with anything written in the 18th century.)
QUOTE
inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards
That's what I said. It wasn't necessary for the trusses to remain attached to the core, though, in order for them to pull the perimeter columns inward.
And, as I said before, explicitly, the fact that the floor trusses were pulling inwards on the perimeter columns wasn't the only force causing them to buckle inwards - they were loaded beyond capacity attempting to bear the extra loading caused by the impact damage, which forced the adjacent perimeter columns to support more than they were ever intended to bear.
This would be easy for you to grasp if you merely tried the simple soda-can experiment I described. Simply stand on a pristine (empty) soda can, and tap the side. It will collapse after you tap it, not because the tap crushes the can, but because the tap initiates unfavorable geometry in the can leading to its ultimate failure.
NOBODY, NOT NIST, NOT ME, ever said the columns' buckling inward was due SOLELY to the inward force exerted by the floor trusses. NOBODY. You read it wrong. Like the tap on the side of the soda can, when you have a structure under a load that's close to its limit strength, it doesn't take much to initiate total failure. That's what happened at the WTC.
Not bombs, not explosives, just a structure that was compromised by impact and further weakened by fire.
At some point, the cumulative effect of all that'd happened weakened the structure such that it was only holding up 149,999,999 pounds of the 150,000,000 pound load above it. Then it fell.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Jun 16 2007, 12:44 PM)
To return this thread to the topic, I found this interesting compilation of technical, peer reviewed papers about various aspects of 9/11. Now, I haven’t read all of them, but I’m willing to bet that none of them support the “troother’s” positions.
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/...wtc-on-911.html
Thanks for pimping my Blog
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/...wtc-on-911.html
Thanks for pimping my Blog
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 16 2007, 01:00 AM)
And QUICK - What firetruck!?! You're halicinating, that's a red blotch at the top of the guy's rear windshield. If it were a firetruck, it'd be in the air above the car. If you look at his tail-lights, there are red blotches there, too. It's an "ARTIFACT" of the JPEG compression scheme, you loose resolution when it compresses the image.
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too. )
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too.
)Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
wcelliot --- The problem with your definition of failure is that everything is failing from the time it is made. A good example is provided by Gothic cathedrals, which begin to creep under the stress immediately. Of course, it takes centuries for enough creep strain to develop that collapse occurs, as in the Goch cathedral.
Incidentally, various strain models were developed to demonstrate the weakest points of Gothic cathedral design. I have seen the rebar that was placed in drilled holes to compensate so that various churches and cathedrals will not soon go the way of the Goch cathedral.
In case anyone thinks this only happens in structures, I assure you that hillsides and whole mountain ranges also undergo creep deformation. For example, the Rocky Mountains are becoming flatter for this reason, although erosion tends to keep the peaks sharp and rocky...
Incidentally, various strain models were developed to demonstrate the weakest points of Gothic cathedral design. I have seen the rebar that was placed in drilled holes to compensate so that various churches and cathedrals will not soon go the way of the Goch cathedral.
In case anyone thinks this only happens in structures, I assure you that hillsides and whole mountain ranges also undergo creep deformation. For example, the Rocky Mountains are becoming flatter for this reason, although erosion tends to keep the peaks sharp and rocky...
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 16 2007, 10:08 PM)
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too. )
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
You really are a joke
The angle from the rear window is such that the only thing that would reflect on there to be seen would be high up in the air.
But hey, keep on dreaming
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too.
)Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
You really are a joke
The angle from the rear window is such that the only thing that would reflect on there to be seen would be high up in the air.
But hey, keep on dreaming
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 16 2007, 10:08 PM)
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too. )
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
Maybe you should do a little test.
Place a mirror in front of you at about 20 feet and topple it backwards 45 degrees. Now try and see if you can look at yourself in that mirror
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too.
)Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
Maybe you should do a little test.
Place a mirror in front of you at about 20 feet and topple it backwards 45 degrees. Now try and see if you can look at yourself in that mirror
notsoquick
But your words are all lies.
But your words are all lies.
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
Nope, the red is still the third brake light, the white is the van in front and you are still a liar-for-jesus. It sucks to be you.
As you can see the third brakelight is red. Also the angle of the window precludes a reflection of ANYTHING behind the car. So seeing a firetruck requires a certain level of...INSANITY(sorry no other word fits) that most people do not have
Grumpy
I parked in a parking garage once that was part of a motel I was staying at. On the way down from the upper level, I noticed a 2"-wide crack running vertically in one of the support columns holding up the upper level of the parking structure.
I had a building inspector come out to take a look at it (not my job, admittedly), and he immediately red-tagged it. It was condemned, no more cars were allowed to park in that lot.
When a house's roof has more than 1/4" per 12' span, it's considered that the roof is "in-failure". A building inspector will likewise require the roof to be replaced (or at least, strengthened and a report filed by a licensed structural engineer with the building department cerifying that the roof is now sound).
Those were two personal cases where I've heard the term "failure" applied to structures that weren't in the actual process of collapsing. Maybe we're using the same term defined differently in two separate disciplines, but I didn't come up with the term, I'm just using it as I've heard it being used. I also have a book around here someplace discussing building collapses where the term was used in the same way by the author (purchased long before 9/11).
If a structure isn't carrying the load it's designed to carry, I'm calling that "failure" of the structure, even if the acceleration is minute, calculate how long it'll stand with that acceleration, and figure that buildings are supposed to stand until they're brought down.
Granted, nobody's going to tear down the Leaning Tower of Piza or the Great Pyramid of Giza, but buildings are supposed to stay up, and if they aren't, then they aren't structurally sound anymore.
In any case, I'm trying to get the point across that the WTC towers weren't structurally sound even as the perimeter columns were in the process of bending, as the CDiots are trying to claim. It failed slowly, and that point is central to understanding that there were no explosives. It was already on the way down when the columns were bending 20 minutes before the collapse ended.
And as to the firetruck - WHAT FIRETRUCK!?! I see the same red blotches next to the taillights.
You *act* like you have a point.
What is it?
I've already pointed out that the fires probably burned hotter than the NIST model predicted, and DBB has acknowledged that NIST acknowledges the "extreme event" sort of statistical relationship between temperatures and probabilities which are used to bridge the gap between linear models and chaotic processes.
I'm absolutely certain that fires are chaotic. Would you disagree and claim that fire *isn't* chaotic?
I've also identified a common mechanism where electricity in building fires often shorts out, causing transformer fires (some of which explode).
I've also pointed out that when power-distribution circuit breakers blow, they make a BANG that sounds like a grenade going off. (As an engineering student, I worked as a co-op employee for a huge chemical plant that had its own electrical generation facility, and I was part of that group. Power breakers are VERY loud and go BANG when they trip.) If the power lines feeding the impact-floors were anywhere near steel, the insulation would've burned/melted off and there would've been bright flashes of light associated with the electrical shorts, melted steel, and circuit breakers at lower floors tripping (going BANG!) as they tripped.
The BANG-BANG-BANG heard at ground level during the collapse was to be expected from the progressive failure of the floors, each going BANG as they broke. What would you expect them to sound like, wind chimes? A kids bicycle bell? A whoopee cushion?
You claim to "grok" physics, but you've consistently remained silent on all nature of basic physical concepts that go against your preconcluded hypothesis. You've never acknowledged that the speed of sound in steel is faster (20x) than it is in air, which allows a lot of dumb people to misinterpret how sound traveled through the structure, for instance. Maybe the CDiots would listen to you if you acknowledged this fact. But that would weaken the shotgun-style approach of piling one piece of cr@p on top of another, wouldn't it?
So take your pretense that you're only interested in the truth and bugger-off. I'm not fooled. The truth is the last thing you want people to believe.
You *act* like you have a point.
What is it?
I've already pointed out that the fires probably burned hotter than the NIST model predicted, and DBB has acknowledged that NIST acknowledges the "extreme event" sort of statistical relationship between temperatures and probabilities which are used to bridge the gap between linear models and chaotic processes.
I'm absolutely certain that fires are chaotic. Would you disagree and claim that fire *isn't* chaotic?
I've also identified a common mechanism where electricity in building fires often shorts out, causing transformer fires (some of which explode).
I've also pointed out that when power-distribution circuit breakers blow, they make a BANG that sounds like a grenade going off. (As an engineering student, I worked as a co-op employee for a huge chemical plant that had its own electrical generation facility, and I was part of that group. Power breakers are VERY loud and go BANG when they trip.) If the power lines feeding the impact-floors were anywhere near steel, the insulation would've burned/melted off and there would've been bright flashes of light associated with the electrical shorts, melted steel, and circuit breakers at lower floors tripping (going BANG!) as they tripped.
The BANG-BANG-BANG heard at ground level during the collapse was to be expected from the progressive failure of the floors, each going BANG as they broke. What would you expect them to sound like, wind chimes? A kids bicycle bell? A whoopee cushion?
You claim to "grok" physics, but you've consistently remained silent on all nature of basic physical concepts that go against your preconcluded hypothesis. You've never acknowledged that the speed of sound in steel is faster (20x) than it is in air, which allows a lot of dumb people to misinterpret how sound traveled through the structure, for instance. Maybe the CDiots would listen to you if you acknowledged this fact. But that would weaken the shotgun-style approach of piling one piece of cr@p on top of another, wouldn't it?
So take your pretense that you're only interested in the truth and bugger-off. I'm not fooled. The truth is the last thing you want people to believe.
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
anyway, that was my point. mind you, i don't think the actual chemical makeup of the 'meteor', or the degree of 'fusion' has been studied. why? it's just another *mystery* to handwave. was it really fused into a single element? that would mean something, wouldn't it? anyway, that's what the sciencey looking guy said happened. he said 'molten metal', too.
i don't have to 'admit' a scientific fact about the speed of sound through steel. you have to admit that whether you hit a piece of steel with a hammer, or with a rubber mallet, the steel plays the same note, ie. the resonant wavelengths of it's physical dimension.
and, so, if bombs are going off and knocking down steel, the speed of sound through steel is no different than if it is steel hitting steel.
the sound of a bomb going off is not metallic. steel, strangely enough, is metallic sounding.
transformers are like a wet paper bag of an excuse for anything that happened at the towers. they're not all going to start popping at the same time the tower starts to fall, and they're not some kind of coincidental arc furnace. they only explode when there is current going through them, and when they blow, no more current flows. and, they only blow when something causes arcing in the coils. i could see one or two going off, if some metal debris cause a short in a high voltage line, but, in context of all the sirens in the street, and the motors revving, and the rest of it, i don't think a transformer over sixty storeys up would be relatively loud enough to be even heard, let alone mistaken as a series of building demolishing bombs. should we talk about acoustic damping factors? because, any sound trying to get down through the columns loses LOTS of energy at every single connection to another steel beam, or viscoelastic damper, or concrete floor which is touching a column. masonry is best for acoustic damping.
That's exactly what you *would* expect, if you "grokked" physics as you claim you do.
The structural members that fail pass their load to the ones that haven't, and at some point, each of those fails, too. They don't all give up at once, they all give up in series at an accelerated rate.
Take six strong men and one 600pound telephone pole. Have them lift it and hold it up as long as they can. Each starts out carrying 100pounds of load.
One person will tire first and let go. That means the other five need to hold up 120pounds, each, on-average.
Another person will tire and drop his load, leaving four people who have to hold up 150pounds each.
Another person will quickly tire of holding the 150pounds and will drop his load, leaving 3 people to hold 200 pounds apiece.
When the next person tires and drops his load, the remaining two will have to hold 300pounds apiece, and it's quite likely that neither can hold that much, but even assuming one of them *can* hold up 300 pounds, if the other can't, then they'll both drop the load at (almost) the same time, unless the last guy is capable of holding up the whole 600 pounds all on his own.
The rate that people tire of holding a load increases with the load. You should expect that they will, collectively, drop out at an accelerated rate.
This would be even more pronounced if all the people were almost the exact same strength to begin with. Like steel beams that are all the same size, for instance. Statistically, some of them will be stronger than others, even if they were made the same to begin with, but once they start failing, they'll all fail soon thereafter.
Which, ironically, is pretty much the first point I ever made in this discussion - namely that an optimized system tends to fail catastrophically (all at once). If they'd built the towers with steel that was sized by "eye-balling it", then some of the steel members would be a lot stronger than they had to be, and the structure would've ended up "tougher" as a consequence. It also would've been heavier and less likely to reach 110 stories, too, and more expensive to build (and therefore less profitable to lease).
But it *was* optimized and every structural element was sized for the load it was expected to carry, so when the assumptions broke down (a plane took out a wide swath of columns on one side, broke up the concrete floors and dumped thousands of gallons of jet fuel, etc.), then all the structural members got overstressed simultaneously, and it was exactly like the six guys trying to hold up the telephone pole. They didn't need to coordinate between them to "decide" when to drop the pole.
That's exactly what you *would* expect, if you "grokked" physics as you claim you do.
The structural members that fail pass their load to the ones that haven't, and at some point, each of those fails, too. They don't all give up at once, they all give up in series at an accelerated rate.
Take six strong men and one 600pound telephone pole. Have them lift it and hold it up as long as they can. Each starts out carrying 100pounds of load.
One person will tire first and let go. That means the other five need to hold up 120pounds, each, on-average.
Another person will tire and drop his load, leaving four people who have to hold up 150pounds each.
Another person will quickly tire of holding the 150pounds and will drop his load, leaving 3 people to hold 200 pounds apiece.
When the next person tires and drops his load, the remaining two will have to hold 300pounds apiece, and it's quite likely that neither can hold that much, but even assuming one of them *can* hold up 300 pounds, if the other can't, then they'll both drop the load at (almost) the same time, unless the last guy is capable of holding up the whole 600 pounds all on his own.
The rate that people tire of holding a load increases with the load. You should expect that they will, collectively, drop out at an accelerated rate.
This would be even more pronounced if all the people were almost the exact same strength to begin with. Like steel beams that are all the same size, for instance. Statistically, some of them will be stronger than others, even if they were made the same to begin with, but once they start failing, they'll all fail soon thereafter.
Which, ironically, is pretty much the first point I ever made in this discussion - namely that an optimized system tends to fail catastrophically (all at once). If they'd built the towers with steel that was sized by "eye-balling it", then some of the steel members would be a lot stronger than they had to be, and the structure would've ended up "tougher" as a consequence. It also would've been heavier and less likely to reach 110 stories, too, and more expensive to build (and therefore less profitable to lease).
But it *was* optimized and every structural element was sized for the load it was expected to carry, so when the assumptions broke down (a plane took out a wide swath of columns on one side, broke up the concrete floors and dumped thousands of gallons of jet fuel, etc.), then all the structural members got overstressed simultaneously, and it was exactly like the six guys trying to hold up the telephone pole. They didn't need to coordinate between them to "decide" when to drop the pole.
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
i should have said, "this kind of fusion", ie. heavy elements like steel with concrete and paper. indiscriminate fusion of many elements into one would require immense heat. hotter than any fire or friction burn. no chemical reaction will blend many into one, and any arcing would require a sustainable high current, which is pretty unlikely in a collapsing tower.
glad you're having a good time, while your much lauded land of the brave, home of the free, gets turned into nazi germany.
i notice you've all resorted to nit picking, while leaving the meat out of the sandwich.
but, then, you OCTs are probably all shapeshifting nazis.
You really are a joke
The angle from the rear window is such that the only thing that would reflect on there to be seen would be high up in the air.
But hey, keep on dreaming
So, you think the fire truck is in the air?
On the contrary, your mind is the joke around here -- you are blinded not only to the truth, but also to the obvious, as in, "What about the white in the picture, dude?"
(Just a rhetorical question...don't bother answering as I don't expect truthful answers from OCTs anymore...something I learned a long time ago.)
HE MAKES ME LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES
HE LEADS ME BESIDE THE STILL WATERS
Maybe you should do a little test.
Place a mirror in front of you at about 20 feet and topple it backwards 45 degrees. Now try and see if you can look at yourself in that mirror
You do your own test, except remember to get up off the ground some to compensate for being up in the cab of a fire truck -- it's a little higher up there and the angle is different.
Here is the first video -- it's better because you can see the emergency vehicle move in line behind the car with the reflection. That's right...YOU CAN SEE IT MOVE INTO POSITION BEHIND THE CAR IT'S FOLLOWING.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T SEE IT MOVING, YOU ARE EITHER BLIND OR A LIAR (FOR INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY) LIKE GRUMPY OR ADOUCETTE.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
HE RESTORES MY SOUL
You really are a joke
The angle from the rear window is such that the only thing that would reflect on there to be seen would be high up in the air.
But hey, keep on dreaming[/QUOTE]
So, you think the fire truck is in the air?
On the contrary, your mind is the joke around here -- you are blinded not only to the truth, but also to the obvious, as in, "What about the white in the picture, dude?"
(Just a rhetorical question...don't bother answering as I don't expect truthful answers from OCTs anymore...something I learned a long time ago.)
HE MAKES ME LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES
HE LEADS ME BESIDE THE STILL WATERS
The white you see, is the white Van riding in front of the car with the red breaklight. IF you really can't see that, you must be blind.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
HE RESTORES MY SOUL
Ah i see you got a new video which also proves you really are an idiot. If you really look you can see that its the car in front of the BMW that comes into view. You can even see that tail light from the car right through the window. Are you really that blind that you can't see that or what? I know you wanna stick to your story here, but come on, even you must see that you are wrong....
QUOTE
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
But your words are all lies.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH THY WORD IS TRUTH |
But your words are all lies.
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
Nope, the red is still the third brake light, the white is the van in front and you are still a liar-for-jesus. It sucks to be you.
As you can see the third brakelight is red. Also the angle of the window precludes a reflection of ANYTHING behind the car. So seeing a firetruck requires a certain level of...INSANITY(sorry no other word fits) that most people do not have
Grumpy
QUOTE
The problem with your definition of failure is that everything is failing from the time it is made.
I parked in a parking garage once that was part of a motel I was staying at. On the way down from the upper level, I noticed a 2"-wide crack running vertically in one of the support columns holding up the upper level of the parking structure.
I had a building inspector come out to take a look at it (not my job, admittedly), and he immediately red-tagged it. It was condemned, no more cars were allowed to park in that lot.
When a house's roof has more than 1/4" per 12' span, it's considered that the roof is "in-failure". A building inspector will likewise require the roof to be replaced (or at least, strengthened and a report filed by a licensed structural engineer with the building department cerifying that the roof is now sound).
Those were two personal cases where I've heard the term "failure" applied to structures that weren't in the actual process of collapsing. Maybe we're using the same term defined differently in two separate disciplines, but I didn't come up with the term, I'm just using it as I've heard it being used. I also have a book around here someplace discussing building collapses where the term was used in the same way by the author (purchased long before 9/11).
If a structure isn't carrying the load it's designed to carry, I'm calling that "failure" of the structure, even if the acceleration is minute, calculate how long it'll stand with that acceleration, and figure that buildings are supposed to stand until they're brought down.
Granted, nobody's going to tear down the Leaning Tower of Piza or the Great Pyramid of Giza, but buildings are supposed to stay up, and if they aren't, then they aren't structurally sound anymore.
In any case, I'm trying to get the point across that the WTC towers weren't structurally sound even as the perimeter columns were in the process of bending, as the CDiots are trying to claim. It failed slowly, and that point is central to understanding that there were no explosives. It was already on the way down when the columns were bending 20 minutes before the collapse ended.
And as to the firetruck - WHAT FIRETRUCK!?! I see the same red blotches next to the taillights.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 16 2007, 11:18 PM)
In any case, I'm trying to get the point across that the WTC towers weren't structurally sound even as the perimeter columns were in the process of bending, as the CDiots are trying to claim. It failed slowly, and that point is central to understanding that there were no explosives. It was already on the way down when the columns were bending 20 minutes before the collapse ended.
I certainly agree with that!
And I'll agree that a structure has "failed" when it no longer passes inspection.
I certainly agree with that!
And I'll agree that a structure has "failed" when it no longer passes inspection.
okay. good. you agree that failure is a process, and not an on off thing.
bowing of columns was only observed on one tower.
i have entertained the idea that it was a straw that broke the camel's back type of effect, by i just can't see everything letting go at once in such a tight steel weave.
i find it interesting that no matter what evidence is presented(molten steel running, squibs, reports of explosions, flashes going off during the collapse, reports of flashes going off during collapse, motives/aka who benefits?, molten metal pouring from the tower, a metal fire, rapidly expanding, pyroclastic-like cloud, debris radius of a bomb blast, extreme pulverization, elevated tritium levels, yellow pall in the air after collapse, demolition waves travelling faster down the sides than freefalling debris on the outside, and a debris pile with an amazing amount of heat at the surface, which took months to cool....to name just a few), OCTs still insist there was no evidence, and only an idiot can't see it was a natural collapse.
the tower (allegedly)took the full weight of a passenger jet, some 80-120 tons of 'stuff' into it, and barely budged(taking far less force than it would in a hurricane), it then sat there once again, not budging, but burning, and yes, presumably weakening(although, i would argue not that the fires were hotter, but that they were MUCH cooler than NIST proposed in their simulation, because of the lack of light-emitting flame, aka, conflagration).
and, now these mighty towers, of a sudden, fold like a cheap suit.
if it weren't for all the reports of bombs, and the flashes, and the eyewtinesses saying boom, boom, boom, boom, ...'like a controlled demolition', and the lock down of the crime scene and subsequent destruction of evidence, welllll.... maybe i could believe it was a gravity driven collapse.
but, i would have to be pretty agenda oriented to simply handwave, and ignore evidence, and in it's place, favour simulations and theoretical scenarios that 'could' have happened.
the OCTopus is famous for it's ability to blend into the background like a chameleon(LIZARD, lol).
bowing of columns was only observed on one tower.
i have entertained the idea that it was a straw that broke the camel's back type of effect, by i just can't see everything letting go at once in such a tight steel weave.
i find it interesting that no matter what evidence is presented(molten steel running, squibs, reports of explosions, flashes going off during the collapse, reports of flashes going off during collapse, motives/aka who benefits?, molten metal pouring from the tower, a metal fire, rapidly expanding, pyroclastic-like cloud, debris radius of a bomb blast, extreme pulverization, elevated tritium levels, yellow pall in the air after collapse, demolition waves travelling faster down the sides than freefalling debris on the outside, and a debris pile with an amazing amount of heat at the surface, which took months to cool....to name just a few), OCTs still insist there was no evidence, and only an idiot can't see it was a natural collapse.
the tower (allegedly)took the full weight of a passenger jet, some 80-120 tons of 'stuff' into it, and barely budged(taking far less force than it would in a hurricane), it then sat there once again, not budging, but burning, and yes, presumably weakening(although, i would argue not that the fires were hotter, but that they were MUCH cooler than NIST proposed in their simulation, because of the lack of light-emitting flame, aka, conflagration).
and, now these mighty towers, of a sudden, fold like a cheap suit.
if it weren't for all the reports of bombs, and the flashes, and the eyewtinesses saying boom, boom, boom, boom, ...'like a controlled demolition', and the lock down of the crime scene and subsequent destruction of evidence, welllll.... maybe i could believe it was a gravity driven collapse.
but, i would have to be pretty agenda oriented to simply handwave, and ignore evidence, and in it's place, favour simulations and theoretical scenarios that 'could' have happened.
the OCTopus is famous for it's ability to blend into the background like a chameleon(LIZARD, lol).
QUOTE (newton+Jun 16 2007, 09:29 PM)
bowing of columns was only observed on one tower.
It was not only observed in both towers but photographed as well.
You say you can't see it "letting go" but all that indicates is your lack of education and understanding.
Arthur
It was not only observed in both towers but photographed as well.
You say you can't see it "letting go" but all that indicates is your lack of education and understanding.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Jun 17 2007, 02:29 AM)
bowing of columns was only observed on one tower.
Actually, is was observed on both. See NCSTAR1collapseofTowers, p.87
Actually, is was observed on both. See NCSTAR1collapseofTowers, p.87
QUOTE
concrete, molten metal, all FUSED into ONE SINGLE ELEMENT."
You *act* like you have a point.
What is it?
I've already pointed out that the fires probably burned hotter than the NIST model predicted, and DBB has acknowledged that NIST acknowledges the "extreme event" sort of statistical relationship between temperatures and probabilities which are used to bridge the gap between linear models and chaotic processes.
I'm absolutely certain that fires are chaotic. Would you disagree and claim that fire *isn't* chaotic?
I've also identified a common mechanism where electricity in building fires often shorts out, causing transformer fires (some of which explode).
I've also pointed out that when power-distribution circuit breakers blow, they make a BANG that sounds like a grenade going off. (As an engineering student, I worked as a co-op employee for a huge chemical plant that had its own electrical generation facility, and I was part of that group. Power breakers are VERY loud and go BANG when they trip.) If the power lines feeding the impact-floors were anywhere near steel, the insulation would've burned/melted off and there would've been bright flashes of light associated with the electrical shorts, melted steel, and circuit breakers at lower floors tripping (going BANG!) as they tripped.
The BANG-BANG-BANG heard at ground level during the collapse was to be expected from the progressive failure of the floors, each going BANG as they broke. What would you expect them to sound like, wind chimes? A kids bicycle bell? A whoopee cushion?
You claim to "grok" physics, but you've consistently remained silent on all nature of basic physical concepts that go against your preconcluded hypothesis. You've never acknowledged that the speed of sound in steel is faster (20x) than it is in air, which allows a lot of dumb people to misinterpret how sound traveled through the structure, for instance. Maybe the CDiots would listen to you if you acknowledged this fact. But that would weaken the shotgun-style approach of piling one piece of cr@p on top of another, wouldn't it?
So take your pretense that you're only interested in the truth and bugger-off. I'm not fooled. The truth is the last thing you want people to believe.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 17 2007, 03:03 AM)
It was not only observed in both towers but photographed as well.
You say you can't see it "letting go" but all that indicates is your lack of education and understanding.
Arthur
depends how you define education, pope arthority.
i've only seen bowing on one tower, and it was only severe seconds before the total collapse initiation.
thanks for the info. too bad it has to be delivered with cut down attempts.
the reason i can't see it letting go all at once, is because of force vectors, your holiness. between the spandrel plates, the floor trusses running perpendicular, the core with it's cross bracing...
that's a lot of different stress pathways to all 'decide' to COMPLETELY give up the ghost at the same time.
what is it arthurs say when they're upset, ....ES&D, or something?
anyway, ES&D, arthurs. i'm not interested in your assessment of my brain. i think your education was mostly in propaganda techniques, and pulling the wings off of flies.
pierre, thank you.
You say you can't see it "letting go" but all that indicates is your lack of education and understanding.
Arthur
depends how you define education, pope arthority.
i've only seen bowing on one tower, and it was only severe seconds before the total collapse initiation.
thanks for the info. too bad it has to be delivered with cut down attempts.
the reason i can't see it letting go all at once, is because of force vectors, your holiness. between the spandrel plates, the floor trusses running perpendicular, the core with it's cross bracing...
that's a lot of different stress pathways to all 'decide' to COMPLETELY give up the ghost at the same time.
what is it arthurs say when they're upset, ....ES&D, or something?
anyway, ES&D, arthurs. i'm not interested in your assessment of my brain. i think your education was mostly in propaganda techniques, and pulling the wings off of flies.
pierre, thank you.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 16 2007, 10:18 PM)
i've only seen bowing on one tower, and it was only severe seconds before the total collapse initiation.
WHAT?????
Both sets of pictures of the bowing in are in the NIST reports.
Are you saying you HAVEN'T READ the reports??????
Arthur
WHAT?????
Both sets of pictures of the bowing in are in the NIST reports.
Are you saying you HAVEN'T READ the reports??????
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 17 2007, 03:10 AM)
You *act* like you have a point.
What is it?
I've already pointed out that the fires probably burned hotter than the NIST model predicted, and DBB has acknowledged that NIST acknowledges the "extreme event" sort of statistical relationship between temperatures and probabilities which are used to bridge the gap between linear models and chaotic processes.
I'm absolutely certain that fires are chaotic. Would you disagree and claim that fire *isn't* chaotic?
I've also identified a common mechanism where electricity in building fires often shorts out, causing transformer fires (some of which explode).
I've also pointed out that when power-distribution circuit breakers blow, they make a BANG that sounds like a grenade going off. (As an engineering student, I worked as a co-op employee for a huge chemical plant that had its own electrical generation facility, and I was part of that group. Power breakers are VERY loud and go BANG when they trip.) If the power lines feeding the impact-floors were anywhere near steel, the insulation would've burned/melted off and there would've been bright flashes of light associated with the electrical shorts, melted steel, and circuit breakers at lower floors tripping (going BANG!) as they tripped.
The BANG-BANG-BANG heard at ground level during the collapse was to be expected from the progressive failure of the floors, each going BANG as they broke. What would you expect them to sound like, wind chimes? A kids bicycle bell? A whoopee cushion?
You claim to "grok" physics, but you've consistently remained silent on all nature of basic physical concepts that go against your preconcluded hypothesis. You've never acknowledged that the speed of sound in steel is faster (20x) than it is in air, which allows a lot of dumb people to misinterpret how sound traveled through the structure, for instance. Maybe the CDiots would listen to you if you acknowledged this fact. But that would weaken the shotgun-style approach of piling one piece of cr@p on top of another, wouldn't it?
So take your pretense that you're only interested in the truth and bugger-off. I'm not fooled. The truth is the last thing you want people to believe.
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
anyway, that was my point. mind you, i don't think the actual chemical makeup of the 'meteor', or the degree of 'fusion' has been studied. why? it's just another *mystery* to handwave. was it really fused into a single element? that would mean something, wouldn't it? anyway, that's what the sciencey looking guy said happened. he said 'molten metal', too.
i don't have to 'admit' a scientific fact about the speed of sound through steel. you have to admit that whether you hit a piece of steel with a hammer, or with a rubber mallet, the steel plays the same note, ie. the resonant wavelengths of it's physical dimension.
and, so, if bombs are going off and knocking down steel, the speed of sound through steel is no different than if it is steel hitting steel.
the sound of a bomb going off is not metallic. steel, strangely enough, is metallic sounding.
transformers are like a wet paper bag of an excuse for anything that happened at the towers. they're not all going to start popping at the same time the tower starts to fall, and they're not some kind of coincidental arc furnace. they only explode when there is current going through them, and when they blow, no more current flows. and, they only blow when something causes arcing in the coils. i could see one or two going off, if some metal debris cause a short in a high voltage line, but, in context of all the sirens in the street, and the motors revving, and the rest of it, i don't think a transformer over sixty storeys up would be relatively loud enough to be even heard, let alone mistaken as a series of building demolishing bombs. should we talk about acoustic damping factors? because, any sound trying to get down through the columns loses LOTS of energy at every single connection to another steel beam, or viscoelastic damper, or concrete floor which is touching a column. masonry is best for acoustic damping.
QUOTE
Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen. - - Heinlein
Reply With Quote
Reply With Quote
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 16 2007, 10:14 PM)
wcelliot --- The problem with your definition of failure is that everything is failing from the time it is made. A good example is provided by Gothic cathedrals, which begin to creep under the stress immediately. Of course, it takes centuries for enough creep strain to develop that collapse occurs, as in the Goch cathedral.
Incidentally, various strain models were developed to demonstrate the weakest points of Gothic cathedral design. I have seen the rebar that was placed in drilled holes to compensate so that various churches and cathedrals will not soon go the way of the Goch cathedral.
In case anyone thinks this only happens in structures, I assure you that hillsides and whole mountain ranges also undergo creep deformation. For example, the Rocky Mountains are becoming flatter for this reason, although erosion tends to keep the peaks sharp and rocky...
Hi all!
Been away ill. Just getting my eyesight back but still can't read screens/print for long.
I risked straining my still 'over-sensitive' optic nerve and came on to the 911 thread to read a few pages (I needed a good laugh after my boring/depressing convalescence...and the Cters/CDers do never dissappoint! hehehe).
Anyhow David B Benson, just to make this post relevant to 911 physical phenomena, I have bolded the last paragraph of your post quoted above and mention an interesting phenomenon associated with a MASSIVE ROCKFALL from a mountain face (somewhere in the USA, I think) that felled trees for hundreds of meters of forest area WITHOUT THE (two, I think) HUGELY-MASSIVE ROCK SECTIONS EVER TOUCHING/REACHING THEM AT ALL!
The mystery/reason was finally settled when it was established that the huge SLAB-LIKE rock sections FLIPPED over as they fell (like a heavy book falling flat from an on-edge position), eventually EXPELLING AIR at tremendous velocities which flattened trees just like hurricane/tornado winds do.
The point is that as such 'wide body/face area' material falls and hits/tips flat AT SPEED, it displaces/expells A LOT of air, creating tremendous velocities/pressure-fronts....just as seen in the tower 'dust expulsions' and 'perimeter peeling' and 'booming thunderclaps' phenomena.
That's it from me until next month (I promised my physicians to be 'good' and not over-strain' my eyes/optic nerves just to be on thew safe side and wait full recovery period.
Cheers all til then (or when I'm desperate for another good belly laugh! hehe.
RC.
.
Incidentally, various strain models were developed to demonstrate the weakest points of Gothic cathedral design. I have seen the rebar that was placed in drilled holes to compensate so that various churches and cathedrals will not soon go the way of the Goch cathedral.
In case anyone thinks this only happens in structures, I assure you that hillsides and whole mountain ranges also undergo creep deformation. For example, the Rocky Mountains are becoming flatter for this reason, although erosion tends to keep the peaks sharp and rocky...
Hi all!
Been away ill. Just getting my eyesight back but still can't read screens/print for long.
I risked straining my still 'over-sensitive' optic nerve and came on to the 911 thread to read a few pages (I needed a good laugh after my boring/depressing convalescence...and the Cters/CDers do never dissappoint! hehehe).
Anyhow David B Benson, just to make this post relevant to 911 physical phenomena, I have bolded the last paragraph of your post quoted above and mention an interesting phenomenon associated with a MASSIVE ROCKFALL from a mountain face (somewhere in the USA, I think) that felled trees for hundreds of meters of forest area WITHOUT THE (two, I think) HUGELY-MASSIVE ROCK SECTIONS EVER TOUCHING/REACHING THEM AT ALL!
The mystery/reason was finally settled when it was established that the huge SLAB-LIKE rock sections FLIPPED over as they fell (like a heavy book falling flat from an on-edge position), eventually EXPELLING AIR at tremendous velocities which flattened trees just like hurricane/tornado winds do.
The point is that as such 'wide body/face area' material falls and hits/tips flat AT SPEED, it displaces/expells A LOT of air, creating tremendous velocities/pressure-fronts....just as seen in the tower 'dust expulsions' and 'perimeter peeling' and 'booming thunderclaps' phenomena.
That's it from me until next month (I promised my physicians to be 'good' and not over-strain' my eyes/optic nerves just to be on thew safe side and wait full recovery period.
Cheers all til then (or when I'm desperate for another good belly laugh! hehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE
that's a lot of different stress pathways to all 'decide' to COMPLETELY give up the ghost at the same time.
That's exactly what you *would* expect, if you "grokked" physics as you claim you do.
The structural members that fail pass their load to the ones that haven't, and at some point, each of those fails, too. They don't all give up at once, they all give up in series at an accelerated rate.
Take six strong men and one 600pound telephone pole. Have them lift it and hold it up as long as they can. Each starts out carrying 100pounds of load.
One person will tire first and let go. That means the other five need to hold up 120pounds, each, on-average.
Another person will tire and drop his load, leaving four people who have to hold up 150pounds each.
Another person will quickly tire of holding the 150pounds and will drop his load, leaving 3 people to hold 200 pounds apiece.
When the next person tires and drops his load, the remaining two will have to hold 300pounds apiece, and it's quite likely that neither can hold that much, but even assuming one of them *can* hold up 300 pounds, if the other can't, then they'll both drop the load at (almost) the same time, unless the last guy is capable of holding up the whole 600 pounds all on his own.
The rate that people tire of holding a load increases with the load. You should expect that they will, collectively, drop out at an accelerated rate.
This would be even more pronounced if all the people were almost the exact same strength to begin with. Like steel beams that are all the same size, for instance. Statistically, some of them will be stronger than others, even if they were made the same to begin with, but once they start failing, they'll all fail soon thereafter.
Which, ironically, is pretty much the first point I ever made in this discussion - namely that an optimized system tends to fail catastrophically (all at once). If they'd built the towers with steel that was sized by "eye-balling it", then some of the steel members would be a lot stronger than they had to be, and the structure would've ended up "tougher" as a consequence. It also would've been heavier and less likely to reach 110 stories, too, and more expensive to build (and therefore less profitable to lease).
But it *was* optimized and every structural element was sized for the load it was expected to carry, so when the assumptions broke down (a plane took out a wide swath of columns on one side, broke up the concrete floors and dumped thousands of gallons of jet fuel, etc.), then all the structural members got overstressed simultaneously, and it was exactly like the six guys trying to hold up the telephone pole. They didn't need to coordinate between them to "decide" when to drop the pole.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| that's a lot of different stress pathways to all 'decide' to COMPLETELY give up the ghost at the same time. |
That's exactly what you *would* expect, if you "grokked" physics as you claim you do.
The structural members that fail pass their load to the ones that haven't, and at some point, each of those fails, too. They don't all give up at once, they all give up in series at an accelerated rate.
Take six strong men and one 600pound telephone pole. Have them lift it and hold it up as long as they can. Each starts out carrying 100pounds of load.
One person will tire first and let go. That means the other five need to hold up 120pounds, each, on-average.
Another person will tire and drop his load, leaving four people who have to hold up 150pounds each.
Another person will quickly tire of holding the 150pounds and will drop his load, leaving 3 people to hold 200 pounds apiece.
When the next person tires and drops his load, the remaining two will have to hold 300pounds apiece, and it's quite likely that neither can hold that much, but even assuming one of them *can* hold up 300 pounds, if the other can't, then they'll both drop the load at (almost) the same time, unless the last guy is capable of holding up the whole 600 pounds all on his own.
The rate that people tire of holding a load increases with the load. You should expect that they will, collectively, drop out at an accelerated rate.
This would be even more pronounced if all the people were almost the exact same strength to begin with. Like steel beams that are all the same size, for instance. Statistically, some of them will be stronger than others, even if they were made the same to begin with, but once they start failing, they'll all fail soon thereafter.
Which, ironically, is pretty much the first point I ever made in this discussion - namely that an optimized system tends to fail catastrophically (all at once). If they'd built the towers with steel that was sized by "eye-balling it", then some of the steel members would be a lot stronger than they had to be, and the structure would've ended up "tougher" as a consequence. It also would've been heavier and less likely to reach 110 stories, too, and more expensive to build (and therefore less profitable to lease).
But it *was* optimized and every structural element was sized for the load it was expected to carry, so when the assumptions broke down (a plane took out a wide swath of columns on one side, broke up the concrete floors and dumped thousands of gallons of jet fuel, etc.), then all the structural members got overstressed simultaneously, and it was exactly like the six guys trying to hold up the telephone pole. They didn't need to coordinate between them to "decide" when to drop the pole.
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Hi RC, WELCOME BACK!
You were missed!
Arthur
You were missed!
Arthur
in your pole example, the pole will not remain stationary while people get tired and give up.
you pole example is actually kinda servile, since people and steel are very much not alike.
this is like, the return of the 'zipper theory'.
sorry, not buying zippers and pancakes.
no other tower in similar circumstances has behaved so bizarrely. OCTs need to make it seem like a normal thing. if it was normal, it would have happened at the windsor tower, the meridian plaza, the wtc in the seventies fire, and umpteen dozen others.
steel can slowly deform, while retaining strength. duh.
you pole example is actually kinda servile, since people and steel are very much not alike.
this is like, the return of the 'zipper theory'.
sorry, not buying zippers and pancakes.
no other tower in similar circumstances has behaved so bizarrely. OCTs need to make it seem like a normal thing. if it was normal, it would have happened at the windsor tower, the meridian plaza, the wtc in the seventies fire, and umpteen dozen others.
steel can slowly deform, while retaining strength. duh.
Guys, you missed it. Newton (earlier this page) provided a YouTube link to a guy pointing at a chunk of stuff that looks vaguely like a meteorite (or Invisible-Godzilla scat) and intoning, "It appears to be concrete and molten steel fused into a single element."
Then, Newton adds:
Hey, looks like we should run a contest to come up with a good name for this NEW ELEMENT that was forged in the sun-like temperatures of the WTC explosions.
I nominate "Godzillium".
Then, Newton adds:
QUOTE
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
Hey, looks like we should run a contest to come up with a good name for this NEW ELEMENT that was forged in the sun-like temperatures of the WTC explosions.
I nominate "Godzillium".
QUOTE
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
i should have said, "this kind of fusion", ie. heavy elements like steel with concrete and paper. indiscriminate fusion of many elements into one would require immense heat. hotter than any fire or friction burn. no chemical reaction will blend many into one, and any arcing would require a sustainable high current, which is pretty unlikely in a collapsing tower.
glad you're having a good time, while your much lauded land of the brave, home of the free, gets turned into nazi germany.
i notice you've all resorted to nit picking, while leaving the meat out of the sandwich.
but, then, you OCTs are probably all shapeshifting nazis.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 16 2007, 03:26 PM)
QUOTE
(quicknthedead @ Jun 16 2007, 10:08 PM)
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too. laugh.)
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too. laugh.)
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
You really are a joke
The angle from the rear window is such that the only thing that would reflect on there to be seen would be high up in the air.
But hey, keep on dreaming
So, you think the fire truck is in the air?
On the contrary, your mind is the joke around here -- you are blinded not only to the truth, but also to the obvious, as in, "What about the white in the picture, dude?"
(Just a rhetorical question...don't bother answering as I don't expect truthful answers from OCTs anymore...something I learned a long time ago.)
HE MAKES ME LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES
HE LEADS ME BESIDE THE STILL WATERS
Guys, at this point, it looks like we've convinced everyone but the complete lunatics.
QUOTE (Jay38+Jun 16 2007, 03:30 PM)
QUOTE
(quicknthedead @ Jun 16 2007, 10:08 PM)
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too.)
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
Showing your "true colors" now, eh?
Your explanation of the reflection is ridiculous.
(I suppose if you were to say the sky is falling you'd expect people to believe that too.)
Here's another one (but different) for you to look at. Let's see you find your "red blotches" here.
Also, the white below the red is definitely the emergency vehicle, not the van (look at the still picture as well).
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection1.htm
The OCT is a joke.
9/11 was an inside job.
SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH
THY WORD IS TRUTH
Maybe you should do a little test.
Place a mirror in front of you at about 20 feet and topple it backwards 45 degrees. Now try and see if you can look at yourself in that mirror
You do your own test, except remember to get up off the ground some to compensate for being up in the cab of a fire truck -- it's a little higher up there and the angle is different.
Here is the first video -- it's better because you can see the emergency vehicle move in line behind the car with the reflection. That's right...YOU CAN SEE IT MOVE INTO POSITION BEHIND THE CAR IT'S FOLLOWING.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T SEE IT MOVING, YOU ARE EITHER BLIND OR A LIAR (FOR INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY) LIKE GRUMPY OR ADOUCETTE.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
HE RESTORES MY SOUL
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 17 2007, 05:17 AM)
Guys, at this point, it looks like we've convinced everyone but the complete lunatics.
high five.
high five.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 16 2007, 03:40 PM)
notsoquick
But your words are all lies.
Nope, the red is still the third brake light, the white is the van in front and you are still a liar-for-jesus. It sucks to be you.
As you can see the third brakelight is red. Also the angle of the window precludes a reflection of ANYTHING behind the car. So seeing a firetruck requires a certain level of...INSANITY(sorry no other word fits) that most people do not have
Grumpy
You are wrong, as usual, and you are the liar around here.
Just read the two posts by me before this one:
Here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226656
and here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226660
They cover your bull about the angle of the reflection. And forget your bunk about the brake light -- that is poppycock.
In addition, no one can overlook the "white" in the picture that is the fire truck, nor the fact that you can see it pulling in behind the car with the reflection.
When anyone shares Scripture, it is what God wants, to use us as witnesses for Him and His word (He is quite clear on this in the Bible...apparently something you know little about). A person cannot be saved unless they first hear the Word of God and then believe.
Therefore, when you call me a "liar-for-Jesus", this is just a lie out of your mouth.
You once wrote that you yourself are a Christian.
Now why do I have trouble believing you?
He knows those who are His children.
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
(and also)
THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NOT EVEN ONE
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE
TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE
(these verses pertain to everyone and why all need to be saved from their sins)
(and we need to be honest about what we know and see)
But your words are all lies.
Nope, the red is still the third brake light, the white is the van in front and you are still a liar-for-jesus. It sucks to be you.
As you can see the third brakelight is red. Also the angle of the window precludes a reflection of ANYTHING behind the car. So seeing a firetruck requires a certain level of...INSANITY(sorry no other word fits) that most people do not have
Grumpy
You are wrong, as usual, and you are the liar around here.
Just read the two posts by me before this one:
Here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226656
and here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=226660
They cover your bull about the angle of the reflection. And forget your bunk about the brake light -- that is poppycock.
In addition, no one can overlook the "white" in the picture that is the fire truck, nor the fact that you can see it pulling in behind the car with the reflection.
When anyone shares Scripture, it is what God wants, to use us as witnesses for Him and His word (He is quite clear on this in the Bible...apparently something you know little about). A person cannot be saved unless they first hear the Word of God and then believe.
Therefore, when you call me a "liar-for-Jesus", this is just a lie out of your mouth.
You once wrote that you yourself are a Christian.
Now why do I have trouble believing you?
He knows those who are His children.
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
(and also)
THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NOT EVEN ONE
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE
TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE
(these verses pertain to everyone and why all need to be saved from their sins)
(and we need to be honest about what we know and see)
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 17 2007, 05:03 AM)
You really are a joke
The angle from the rear window is such that the only thing that would reflect on there to be seen would be high up in the air.
But hey, keep on dreaming
[/QUOTE]So, you think the fire truck is in the air?
On the contrary, your mind is the joke around here -- you are blinded not only to the truth, but also to the obvious, as in, "What about the white in the picture, dude?"
(Just a rhetorical question...don't bother answering as I don't expect truthful answers from OCTs anymore...something I learned a long time ago.)
HE MAKES ME LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES
HE LEADS ME BESIDE THE STILL WATERS
The white you see, is the white Van riding in front of the car with the red breaklight. IF you really can't see that, you must be blind.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 17 2007, 06:24 AM)
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
(and also)
THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NOT EVEN ONE
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE
TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE
(these verses pertain to everyone and why all need to be saved from their sins)
(and we need to be honest about what we know and see)
You really are a religious nutter aren't you.... You fit in nicely with the same religious nutters who blow themselves up.
(and also)
THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NOT EVEN ONE
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE
TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE
(these verses pertain to everyone and why all need to be saved from their sins)
(and we need to be honest about what we know and see)
You really are a religious nutter aren't you.... You fit in nicely with the same religious nutters who blow themselves up.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 17 2007, 05:20 AM)
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
HE RESTORES MY SOUL
Ah i see you got a new video which also proves you really are an idiot. If you really look you can see that its the car in front of the BMW that comes into view. You can even see that tail light from the car right through the window. Are you really that blind that you can't see that or what? I know you wanna stick to your story here, but come on, even you must see that you are wrong....
Some comments on the derivation of the crush-up equation in Bazant and Verdure (B&V, for short).
http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCol...C-6-23-2006.pdf
I’ll use the pagination in the draft version linked above rather than the pagination in the published version.
I have looked further into this to get a better understanding of the derivation of the equation of motion for a system that has a variable mass, because it is shedding some matter or is accreting some. This is a rather fascinating topic. It *is* rocket science. (Rockets are variable mass systems.)
I start with the section titled “Differential Equations of Progressive Collapse or Demolition” beginning on p.7.
It is helpful to first look briefly into the crush-down phase of the collapse. In this phase, the top falls down on the lower structure that it crushes progressively. Three “zones” can be labelled Part-A, Zone-B and Part-C. Part-A is the still intact segment of tower below the collapse front. Zone-B is the stack of already compacted mass. Part-C is the intact portion of the tower sitting on top of the compacted Zone-B and co-moving with it. (There is a typo in B&V where Part-C is once designated “Part-A.”) The system that we consider is the “top block” which consists of Zone-B and Zone-C moving together. The location of the crushing front (separating Zone-A and Zone-B) is located at z(t). This is the distance between the positions of the crushing front at time t and the initial position of the roofline. The initial failure point is thus located at z_zero = z(t=0) which also corresponds to the length of Part-C.
The downward momentum of the upper block is thus (1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt, where lambda is the compaction ratio, m(z) is the variable mass of the upper block and dz/dt is the speed of the collapse front.
Notice that (1 - lambda)*dz/dt is the actual speed of the upper-block which is slightly slower than the speed of the collapse front since Zone-B is increasing its thickness at the rate lambda*dz/dt. The term m(z) is the mass of the upper block expressed as a function of the position of the collapse front. This function takes into account the fraction kappa_out of the mass that is being ejected laterally at the “accretion” front. It is being defined at the end of the preceding section of B&V.
In order to obtain the equation of motion it is noted that the condition of dynamic equilibrium according to the d’Alembert principle requires that all the forces the upper block is being subjected to -- including the inertial pseudo-forces -- must add up to zero. The authors choose to use the d’Alembert principle for solving the dynamical problem over Hamilton’s principle or the Lagrange equations of motion because it makes it easier to deal with variable masses that do not have explicit time dependences.
The forces summed up are
(1) the structural resistance from Zone-A : F_c;
(2) the force of gravity : -g*m(z) and;
(3) the inertial pseudo-force -d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt].
The latter is the negative of the time derivative of the momentum. Summing up these forces to zero yields the equation of motion of the collapse front for crush-down. This is eq. (12) in the paper. This equation is used again the new paper of Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB, for short).
It can be noted that the (inertial) pseudo-force acting on the upper block can be spitted into two components. These are simply obtained through calculating the outermost time derivative.
-d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt] =
-(1 - lambda)*m(z)*d/dt(dz/dt) - (1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt
The first term is the inertial resistance of the upper block being accelerated at the rate
a = -(1 - lambda)*d/dt(dz/dt),
while the second term is the inertial resistance from the matter that is being accreted at the collapse front and is thus being accelerated from rest to the instantaneous velocity v = (1 - lambda)dz/dt. Notice that dm/dt = (dm/dz)(dz/dt) is the rate of mass accretion.
The latter term is the source for the (real) inertial force that figures in the eq. of motion (12) and that I have commented on in an earlier post. This force (“F_m”) performs some work on the upper block and thus removes kinetic energy from it. In the infinitesimal time dt, the work performed is
dW = [-(1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt]*(1 – lambda)(dz/dt)*dt = -dm*v^2
where v = (1- lambda)dz/dt
This amount of kinetic energy that is being removed from the upper block is twice the amount of kinetic energy that is communicated to the layer dz of accreted mass (dm*v^2/2). The rest is dissipated in the compaction process.
Let us look into the derivation of the crush-up equation…
…Tomorrow.
http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCol...C-6-23-2006.pdf
I’ll use the pagination in the draft version linked above rather than the pagination in the published version.
I have looked further into this to get a better understanding of the derivation of the equation of motion for a system that has a variable mass, because it is shedding some matter or is accreting some. This is a rather fascinating topic. It *is* rocket science. (Rockets are variable mass systems.)
I start with the section titled “Differential Equations of Progressive Collapse or Demolition” beginning on p.7.
It is helpful to first look briefly into the crush-down phase of the collapse. In this phase, the top falls down on the lower structure that it crushes progressively. Three “zones” can be labelled Part-A, Zone-B and Part-C. Part-A is the still intact segment of tower below the collapse front. Zone-B is the stack of already compacted mass. Part-C is the intact portion of the tower sitting on top of the compacted Zone-B and co-moving with it. (There is a typo in B&V where Part-C is once designated “Part-A.”) The system that we consider is the “top block” which consists of Zone-B and Zone-C moving together. The location of the crushing front (separating Zone-A and Zone-B) is located at z(t). This is the distance between the positions of the crushing front at time t and the initial position of the roofline. The initial failure point is thus located at z_zero = z(t=0) which also corresponds to the length of Part-C.
The downward momentum of the upper block is thus (1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt, where lambda is the compaction ratio, m(z) is the variable mass of the upper block and dz/dt is the speed of the collapse front.
Notice that (1 - lambda)*dz/dt is the actual speed of the upper-block which is slightly slower than the speed of the collapse front since Zone-B is increasing its thickness at the rate lambda*dz/dt. The term m(z) is the mass of the upper block expressed as a function of the position of the collapse front. This function takes into account the fraction kappa_out of the mass that is being ejected laterally at the “accretion” front. It is being defined at the end of the preceding section of B&V.
In order to obtain the equation of motion it is noted that the condition of dynamic equilibrium according to the d’Alembert principle requires that all the forces the upper block is being subjected to -- including the inertial pseudo-forces -- must add up to zero. The authors choose to use the d’Alembert principle for solving the dynamical problem over Hamilton’s principle or the Lagrange equations of motion because it makes it easier to deal with variable masses that do not have explicit time dependences.
The forces summed up are
(1) the structural resistance from Zone-A : F_c;
(2) the force of gravity : -g*m(z) and;
(3) the inertial pseudo-force -d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt].
The latter is the negative of the time derivative of the momentum. Summing up these forces to zero yields the equation of motion of the collapse front for crush-down. This is eq. (12) in the paper. This equation is used again the new paper of Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB, for short).
It can be noted that the (inertial) pseudo-force acting on the upper block can be spitted into two components. These are simply obtained through calculating the outermost time derivative.
-d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt] =
-(1 - lambda)*m(z)*d/dt(dz/dt) - (1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt
The first term is the inertial resistance of the upper block being accelerated at the rate
a = -(1 - lambda)*d/dt(dz/dt),
while the second term is the inertial resistance from the matter that is being accreted at the collapse front and is thus being accelerated from rest to the instantaneous velocity v = (1 - lambda)dz/dt. Notice that dm/dt = (dm/dz)(dz/dt) is the rate of mass accretion.
The latter term is the source for the (real) inertial force that figures in the eq. of motion (12) and that I have commented on in an earlier post. This force (“F_m”) performs some work on the upper block and thus removes kinetic energy from it. In the infinitesimal time dt, the work performed is
dW = [-(1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt]*(1 – lambda)(dz/dt)*dt = -dm*v^2
where v = (1- lambda)dz/dt
This amount of kinetic energy that is being removed from the upper block is twice the amount of kinetic energy that is communicated to the layer dz of accreted mass (dm*v^2/2). The rest is dissipated in the compaction process.
Let us look into the derivation of the crush-up equation…
…Tomorrow.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jun 17 2007, 12:20 AM)
You do your own test, except remember to get up off the ground some to compensate for being up in the cab of a fire truck -- it's a little higher up there and the angle is different.
Here is the first video -- it's better because you can see the emergency vehicle move in line behind the car with the reflection. That's right...YOU CAN SEE IT MOVE INTO POSITION BEHIND THE CAR IT'S FOLLOWING.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T SEE IT MOVING, YOU ARE EITHER BLIND OR A LIAR (FOR INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY) LIKE GRUMPY OR ADOUCETTE.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
Come around for another SPANKING????
Here you go:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161196
Like I said back then, these pictures will FOLLOW YOU.
Se: http://www.368s.com/photos/photo002161_large.jpg
and
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/Imagecar2.jpg
Arthur
Here is the first video -- it's better because you can see the emergency vehicle move in line behind the car with the reflection. That's right...YOU CAN SEE IT MOVE INTO POSITION BEHIND THE CAR IT'S FOLLOWING.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T SEE IT MOVING, YOU ARE EITHER BLIND OR A LIAR (FOR INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY) LIKE GRUMPY OR ADOUCETTE.
http://webfairy.org/pavel/reflection2.htm
Come around for another SPANKING????
Here you go:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=161196
Like I said back then, these pictures will FOLLOW YOU.
Se: http://www.368s.com/photos/photo002161_large.jpg
and
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/Imagecar2.jpg
Arthur
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 17 2007, 03:06 AM)
Some comments on the derivation of the crush-up equation in Bazant and Verdure (B&V, for short).
http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCol...C-6-23-2006.pdf
I’ll use the pagination in the draft version linked above rather than the pagination in the published version.
I have looked further into this to get a better understanding of the derivation of the equation of motion for a system that has a variable mass, because it is shedding some matter or is accreting some. This is a rather fascinating topic. It *is* rocket science. (Rockets are variable mass systems.)
I start with the section titled “Differential Equations of Progressive Collapse or Demolition” beginning on p.7.
It is helpful to first look briefly into the crush-down phase of the collapse. In this phase, the top falls down on the lower structure that it crushes progressively. Three “zones” can be labelled Part-A, Zone-B and Part-C. Part-A is the still intact segment of tower below the collapse front. Zone-B is the stack of already compacted mass. Part-C is the intact portion of the tower sitting on top of the compacted Zone-B and co-moving with it. (There is a typo in B&V where Part-C is once designated “Part-A.”) The system that we consider is the “top block” which consists of Zone-B and Zone-C moving together. The location of the crushing front (separating Zone-A and Zone- is located at z(t). This is the distance between the positions of the crushing front at time t and the initial position of the roofline. The initial failure point is thus located at z_zero = z(t=0) which also corresponds to the length of Part-C.
The downward momentum of the upper block is thus (1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt, where lambda is the compaction ratio, m(z) is the variable mass of the upper block and dz/dt is the speed of the collapse front.
Notice that (1 - lambda)*dz/dt is the actual speed of the upper-block which is slightly slower than the speed of the collapse front since Zone-B is increasing its thickness at the rate lambda*dz/dt. The term m(z) is the mass of the upper block expressed as a function of the position of the collapse front. This function takes into account the fraction kappa_out of the mass that is being ejected laterally at the “accretion” front. It is being defined at the end of the preceding section of B&V.
In order to obtain the equation of motion it is noted that the condition of dynamic equilibrium according to the d’Alembert principle requires that all the forces the upper block is being subjected to -- including the inertial pseudo-forces -- must add up to zero. The authors choose to use the d’Alembert principle for solving the dynamical problem over Hamilton’s principle or the Lagrange equations of motion because it makes it easier to deal with variable masses that do not have explicit time dependences.
The forces summed up are
(1) the structural resistance from Zone-A : F_c;
(2) the force of gravity : -g*m(z) and;
(3) the inertial pseudo-force -d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt].
The latter is the negative of the time derivative of the momentum. Summing up these forces to zero yields the equation of motion of the collapse front for crush-down. This is eq. (12) in the paper. This equation is used again the new paper of Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB, for short).
It can be noted that the (inertial) pseudo-force acting on the upper block can be spitted into two components. These are simply obtained through calculating the outermost time derivative.
-d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt] =
-(1 - lambda)*m(z)*d/dt(dz/dt) - (1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt
The first term is the inertial resistance of the upper block being accelerated at the rate
a = -(1 - lambda)*d/dt(dz/dt),
while the second term is the inertial resistance from the matter that is being accreted at the collapse front and is thus being accelerated from rest to the instantaneous velocity v = (1 - lambda)dz/dt. Notice that dm/dt = (dm/dz)(dz/dt) is the rate of mass accretion.
The latter term is the source for the (real) inertial force that figures in the eq. of motion (12) and that I have commented on in an earlier post. This force (“F_m”) performs some work on the upper block and thus removes kinetic energy from it. In the infinitesimal time dt, the work performed is
dW = [-(1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt]*(1 – lambda)(dz/dt)*dt = -dm*v^2
where v = (1- lambda)dz/dt
This amount of kinetic energy that is being removed from the upper block is twice the amount of kinetic energy that is communicated to the layer dz of accreted mass (dm*v^2/2). The rest is dissipated in the compaction process.
Let us look into the derivation of the crush-up equation…
…Tomorrow.
Even though you and the other OCT supporters do not believe actual events have scientific value.
Can you show this mythical disconnected top block crushing the lower tower?
I really would like an example of this from the WTC or any other structure (were the top block is not crushed first) .
Just show photos (not drawings as in the paper) of the top block crushing the lower block.
http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCol...C-6-23-2006.pdf
I’ll use the pagination in the draft version linked above rather than the pagination in the published version.
I have looked further into this to get a better understanding of the derivation of the equation of motion for a system that has a variable mass, because it is shedding some matter or is accreting some. This is a rather fascinating topic. It *is* rocket science. (Rockets are variable mass systems.)
I start with the section titled “Differential Equations of Progressive Collapse or Demolition” beginning on p.7.
It is helpful to first look briefly into the crush-down phase of the collapse. In this phase, the top falls down on the lower structure that it crushes progressively. Three “zones” can be labelled Part-A, Zone-B and Part-C. Part-A is the still intact segment of tower below the collapse front. Zone-B is the stack of already compacted mass. Part-C is the intact portion of the tower sitting on top of the compacted Zone-B and co-moving with it. (There is a typo in B&V where Part-C is once designated “Part-A.”) The system that we consider is the “top block” which consists of Zone-B and Zone-C moving together. The location of the crushing front (separating Zone-A and Zone-
is located at z(t). This is the distance between the positions of the crushing front at time t and the initial position of the roofline. The initial failure point is thus located at z_zero = z(t=0) which also corresponds to the length of Part-C.The downward momentum of the upper block is thus (1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt, where lambda is the compaction ratio, m(z) is the variable mass of the upper block and dz/dt is the speed of the collapse front.
Notice that (1 - lambda)*dz/dt is the actual speed of the upper-block which is slightly slower than the speed of the collapse front since Zone-B is increasing its thickness at the rate lambda*dz/dt. The term m(z) is the mass of the upper block expressed as a function of the position of the collapse front. This function takes into account the fraction kappa_out of the mass that is being ejected laterally at the “accretion” front. It is being defined at the end of the preceding section of B&V.
In order to obtain the equation of motion it is noted that the condition of dynamic equilibrium according to the d’Alembert principle requires that all the forces the upper block is being subjected to -- including the inertial pseudo-forces -- must add up to zero. The authors choose to use the d’Alembert principle for solving the dynamical problem over Hamilton’s principle or the Lagrange equations of motion because it makes it easier to deal with variable masses that do not have explicit time dependences.
The forces summed up are
(1) the structural resistance from Zone-A : F_c;
(2) the force of gravity : -g*m(z) and;
(3) the inertial pseudo-force -d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt].
The latter is the negative of the time derivative of the momentum. Summing up these forces to zero yields the equation of motion of the collapse front for crush-down. This is eq. (12) in the paper. This equation is used again the new paper of Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB, for short).
It can be noted that the (inertial) pseudo-force acting on the upper block can be spitted into two components. These are simply obtained through calculating the outermost time derivative.
-d/dt[(1 - lambda)*m(z)*dz/dt] =
-(1 - lambda)*m(z)*d/dt(dz/dt) - (1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt
The first term is the inertial resistance of the upper block being accelerated at the rate
a = -(1 - lambda)*d/dt(dz/dt),
while the second term is the inertial resistance from the matter that is being accreted at the collapse front and is thus being accelerated from rest to the instantaneous velocity v = (1 - lambda)dz/dt. Notice that dm/dt = (dm/dz)(dz/dt) is the rate of mass accretion.
The latter term is the source for the (real) inertial force that figures in the eq. of motion (12) and that I have commented on in an earlier post. This force (“F_m”) performs some work on the upper block and thus removes kinetic energy from it. In the infinitesimal time dt, the work performed is
dW = [-(1 - lambda)*dm/dt*dz/dt]*(1 – lambda)(dz/dt)*dt = -dm*v^2
where v = (1- lambda)dz/dt
This amount of kinetic energy that is being removed from the upper block is twice the amount of kinetic energy that is communicated to the layer dz of accreted mass (dm*v^2/2). The rest is dissipated in the compaction process.
Let us look into the derivation of the crush-up equation…
…Tomorrow.
Even though you and the other OCT supporters do not believe actual events have scientific value.
Can you show this mythical disconnected top block crushing the lower tower?
I really would like an example of this from the WTC or any other structure (were the top block is not crushed first) .
Just show photos (not drawings as in the paper) of the top block crushing the lower block.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 17 2007, 12:27 PM)
Even though you and the other OCT supporters do not believe actual events have scientific value. :D
You really ought to disable emoticons when you respond to this post. Look what you've done. My perfectly good "(Zone-B)" symbol just shape-shifted into a scary bespectacled lizard.
You really ought to disable emoticons when you respond to this post. Look what you've done. My perfectly good "(Zone-B)" symbol just shape-shifted into a scary bespectacled lizard.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 17 2007, 12:27 PM)
Can you show this mythical disconnected top block crushing the lower tower?
After seeing this I also share your doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxyK5Hea8w
(I am sorry you are unable to see this David B. Benson)
After seeing this I also share your doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxyK5Hea8w
(I am sorry you are unable to see this David B. Benson)
newton
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=37
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=37
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
anyway, that was my point. mind you, i don't think the actual chemical makeup of the 'meteor', or the degree of 'fusion' has been studied. why? it's just another *mystery* to handwave. was it really fused into a single element? that would mean something, wouldn't it? anyway, that's what the sciencey looking guy said happened. he said 'molten metal', too.
Notice the paper, it's presence indicates that the HIGHEST temp seen by this mass of compressed floors was below 451 F. There is no molten steel, no "fusion" into one substance, little or no indication of high heat at all. This(and other) "meteor" has been extensively studied by REAL scientists, there is no mystery here, just COMPACTED rubble(parts of at least three floors).
The "scientist" in your video is an idiot, and so is anyone who believes his GARBAGE.
How many times is it necessary to correct this falshood before it penetrates into your head??? There was no cross bracing in the cores except on mech floors, PERIOD.
How many times is it necessary to correct this falshood before it penetrates into your head??? There was no cross bracing in the cores except on mech floors, PERIOD.
Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen. - - Heinlein
Reply With Quote
But there is a vast difference between an open mind and an empty one.
Grumpy
Grumpy - What Newton seems to think is even funnier than this being fused into one *substance*.
Re-read his post - He thinks this is a NEW ELEMENT! Like the Periodic Table of Elements may need to be revised!!!
That's what had me rolling on the floor, that's what his "it takes the temperature of the sun" comments were about.
GODZILLIUM DISCOVERED AT WTC SITE!!!
Guys, at this point, it looks like we've convinced everyone but the complete lunatics.
high five.
Which apparently also includes those who are CONVINCED of their own superior intelligence such that they don't have to bother to actually READ the NIST report.
Like newton.
Who claims that only ONE tower had a side wall bowed in.
While the NIST report CLEARLY SHOWS and states that that is the final event that leads to the collapse of both towers.
Which shows that for over 2 years on this forum he has been arguing about something he hasn't even BOTHERED to do the most BASIC research on.
Sheesh.
Arthur
When you say "cuts", how long do you figure it takes explosives to cut the core columns?
Because the perimeter columns were buckling in for at least 20 minutes prior to the collapse.
Did these explosives take 20 minutes to explode?
When you say "cuts", how long do you figure it takes explosives to cut the core columns?
Because the perimeter columns were buckling in for at least 20 minutes prior to the collapse.
Did these explosives take 20 minutes to explode?
QUOTE
"concrete, molten metal, all FUSED into ONE SINGLE ELEMENT."
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=37
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "concrete, molten metal, all FUSED into ONE SINGLE ELEMENT." |
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=37
fusion of elements doesn't happen in common fires. it requires the heat of a sun.
anyway, that was my point. mind you, i don't think the actual chemical makeup of the 'meteor', or the degree of 'fusion' has been studied. why? it's just another *mystery* to handwave. was it really fused into a single element? that would mean something, wouldn't it? anyway, that's what the sciencey looking guy said happened. he said 'molten metal', too.
Notice the paper, it's presence indicates that the HIGHEST temp seen by this mass of compressed floors was below 451 F. There is no molten steel, no "fusion" into one substance, little or no indication of high heat at all. This(and other) "meteor" has been extensively studied by REAL scientists, there is no mystery here, just COMPACTED rubble(parts of at least three floors).
The "scientist" in your video is an idiot, and so is anyone who believes his GARBAGE.
QUOTE
the core with it's cross bracing
How many times is it necessary to correct this falshood before it penetrates into your head??? There was no cross bracing in the cores except on mech floors, PERIOD.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the core with it's cross bracing |
How many times is it necessary to correct this falshood before it penetrates into your head??? There was no cross bracing in the cores except on mech floors, PERIOD.
Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen. - - Heinlein
Reply With Quote
But there is a vast difference between an open mind and an empty one.
Grumpy
newton
I was unaware that ANY other non reinforced concrete building had been hit by an airliner doing over 450 mph. Oh, thats right, no other buildings have had simular circumstances, the Twin Towers were the very first all steel framed buildings in the entire history of skyscraper construction to be hit by 125 ton aircraft! So what is normal??? The only two times of "Simular circumstances" both buildings collapsed. So it would appear(given the 2 for 2 results) that...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom.
...is "normal" behavior, in these circumstances.
Grumpy
QUOTE
no other tower in similar circumstances has behaved so bizarrely. OCTs need to make it seem like a normal thing. if it was normal, it would have happened at the windsor tower, the meridian plaza, the wtc in the seventies fire, and umpteen dozen others.
I was unaware that ANY other non reinforced concrete building had been hit by an airliner doing over 450 mph. Oh, thats right, no other buildings have had simular circumstances, the Twin Towers were the very first all steel framed buildings in the entire history of skyscraper construction to be hit by 125 ton aircraft! So what is normal??? The only two times of "Simular circumstances" both buildings collapsed. So it would appear(given the 2 for 2 results) that...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom.
...is "normal" behavior, in these circumstances.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 17 2007, 12:54 PM)
After seeing this I also share your doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxyK5Hea8w
(I am sorry you are unable to see this David B. Benson)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxyK5Hea8w
(I am sorry you are unable to see this David B. Benson)
This collapse model will renew your faith.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=35...+collapse&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=35...+collapse&hl=en
QUOTE
There is no molten steel, no "fusion" into one substance,
Grumpy - What Newton seems to think is even funnier than this being fused into one *substance*.
Re-read his post - He thinks this is a NEW ELEMENT! Like the Periodic Table of Elements may need to be revised!!!
That's what had me rolling on the floor, that's what his "it takes the temperature of the sun" comments were about.
GODZILLIUM DISCOVERED AT WTC SITE!!!
QUOTE (newton+Jun 17 2007, 12:27 AM)
QUOTE (wcelliott @ Jun 17 2007+ 05:17 AM)
Guys, at this point, it looks like we've convinced everyone but the complete lunatics.
high five.
Which apparently also includes those who are CONVINCED of their own superior intelligence such that they don't have to bother to actually READ the NIST report.
Like newton.
Who claims that only ONE tower had a side wall bowed in.
While the NIST report CLEARLY SHOWS and states that that is the final event that leads to the collapse of both towers.
Which shows that for over 2 years on this forum he has been arguing about something he hasn't even BOTHERED to do the most BASIC research on.
Sheesh.
Arthur
The walls ofcourse bowed in when the inner core was cut. The picture in Nist report dont tell much. They are trying to back up their absurdity. Designed to mislead people.
People have to look at the videos... what they show is very clear. Inner core cuts and floors simply blow out... unbelivenble.
video
People have to look at the videos... what they show is very clear. Inner core cuts and floors simply blow out... unbelivenble.
video
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 17 2007, 04:54 AM)
After seeing this I also share your doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxyK5Hea8w
(I am sorry you are unable to see this David B. Benson)
I would settle for a computer simulation released to the public. One that goes past "poised to collapse".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxyK5Hea8w
(I am sorry you are unable to see this David B. Benson)
I would settle for a computer simulation released to the public. One that goes past "poised to collapse".
QUOTE
Inner core cuts and floors simply blow out...
When you say "cuts", how long do you figure it takes explosives to cut the core columns?
Because the perimeter columns were buckling in for at least 20 minutes prior to the collapse.
Did these explosives take 20 minutes to explode?
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 17 2007, 04:48 AM)
You really ought to disable emoticons when you respond to this post. Look what you've done. My perfectly good "(Zone-" symbol just shape-shifted into a scary bespectacled lizard.
Good point, the shape-shifted lizards are about as believable as a disconnected top block staying together and crushing an undamaged lower structure.
I wonder if the shape-shifted lizards believers have written a theoretical paper showing their idea is possible.
" symbol just shape-shifted into a scary bespectacled lizard. Good point, the shape-shifted lizards are about as believable as a disconnected top block staying together and crushing an undamaged lower structure.
I wonder if the shape-shifted lizards believers have written a theoretical paper showing their idea is possible.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 17 2007, 09:09 AM)
When you say "cuts", how long do you figure it takes explosives to cut the core columns?
Because the perimeter columns were buckling in for at least 20 minutes prior to the collapse.
Did these explosives take 20 minutes to explode?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 17 2007, 12:26 PM)
thermite.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774
YAWN
You can always tell when CT'ers got nothing.
Arthur
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774
YAWN
You can always tell when CT'ers got nothing.
Arthur
reasonlesswhine
Then you should be able to produce evidence, you know, cut core columns, slag or puddles of pure iron. Not to mention all those heavy channels to direct the thermite sideways
What, you don't have any??? So why not Klingons??? Steel eating termites???
Because there is no evidence for their existence. There is NO evidence of the use of thermite or explosives. Science is looking at the evidence and determining the possibilities through testing. Since there is no evidence of thermite it is eliminated as a possibility.
Grumpy
Then you should be able to produce evidence, you know, cut core columns, slag or puddles of pure iron. Not to mention all those heavy channels to direct the thermite sideways
What, you don't have any??? So why not Klingons??? Steel eating termites???
Because there is no evidence for their existence. There is NO evidence of the use of thermite or explosives. Science is looking at the evidence and determining the possibilities through testing. Since there is no evidence of thermite it is eliminated as a possibility.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 17 2007, 01:55 PM)
newton
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=37
Notice the paper, it's presence indicates that the HIGHEST temp seen by this mass of compressed floors was below 451 F. There is no molten steel, no "fusion" into one substance, little or no indication of high heat at all. This(and other) "meteor" has been extensively studied by REAL scientists, there is no mystery here, just COMPACTED rubble(parts of at least three floors).
The "scientist" in your video is an idiot, and so is anyone who believes his GARBAGE.
How many times is it necessary to correct this falshood before it penetrates into your head??? There was no cross bracing in the cores except on mech floors, PERIOD.
But there is a vast difference between an open mind and an empty one.
Grumpy
i would like someone to prove that that paper is still paper.
i would also like you to explain the obvious SLAG that the 'paper'(which i say is now 'fossilized', by the look of it) is sitting on. how can paper sit in the midst of what was obviously in a molten state.
i wonder how paper could be fossilized in extreme heat?
i grew up with slag, and it is easy to recognize.
there obviously WAS some material in a molten state, and it's obviously not aluminum, or babbit, but more like rock and metal fused. the fact that someone THEORIZED the meteor was create dy compression alone, is no proof. the fact that there is slag in there, proves that there were rock melting temperatures.
i think you're confused about what i mean by cross bracing. i'm talking about all the horizontal beams running between core columns, not diagonal ones.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=37
Notice the paper, it's presence indicates that the HIGHEST temp seen by this mass of compressed floors was below 451 F. There is no molten steel, no "fusion" into one substance, little or no indication of high heat at all. This(and other) "meteor" has been extensively studied by REAL scientists, there is no mystery here, just COMPACTED rubble(parts of at least three floors).
The "scientist" in your video is an idiot, and so is anyone who believes his GARBAGE.
How many times is it necessary to correct this falshood before it penetrates into your head??? There was no cross bracing in the cores except on mech floors, PERIOD.
But there is a vast difference between an open mind and an empty one.
Grumpy
i would like someone to prove that that paper is still paper.
i would also like you to explain the obvious SLAG that the 'paper'(which i say is now 'fossilized', by the look of it) is sitting on. how can paper sit in the midst of what was obviously in a molten state.
i wonder how paper could be fossilized in extreme heat?
i grew up with slag, and it is easy to recognize.
there obviously WAS some material in a molten state, and it's obviously not aluminum, or babbit, but more like rock and metal fused. the fact that someone THEORIZED the meteor was create dy compression alone, is no proof. the fact that there is slag in there, proves that there were rock melting temperatures.
i think you're confused about what i mean by cross bracing. i'm talking about all the horizontal beams running between core columns, not diagonal ones.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 17 2007, 05:58 PM)
There is NO evidence of the use of thermite or explosives. Science is looking at the evidence and determining the possibilities through testing. Since there is no evidence of thermite it is eliminated as a possibility.
Grumpy
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Grumpy
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 17 2007, 05:17 PM)
Good point, the shape-shifted lizards are about as believable as a disconnected top block staying together and crushing an undamaged lower structure.
I wonder if the shape-shifted lizards believers have written a theoretical paper showing their idea is possible. :lol:
Now, you've done it again. Will you leave my "(Zone-B)" alone?
Regarding the believability of the two-phased model, what do you think of B&V's justification for this assumption? This is on p.7 just below eq.10. I intended to comment on this in a future message. I notice that the discussion is extended a bit in the published version. (Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2007)
I wonder if the shape-shifted lizards believers have written a theoretical paper showing their idea is possible. :lol:
Now, you've done it again. Will you leave my "(Zone-B)" alone?
Regarding the believability of the two-phased model, what do you think of B&V's justification for this assumption? This is on p.7 just below eq.10. I intended to comment on this in a future message. I notice that the discussion is extended a bit in the published version. (Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2007)
QUOTE (newton+Jun 17 2007, 06:32 PM)
i think you're confused about what i mean by cross bracing. i'm talking about all the horizontal beams running between core columns, not diagonal ones.
The terminology seems to be quite floating but if you perform Google image searches for "cross bracing", "diagonal bracing", "lateral bracing" and "horizontal bracing" (all of these seem to refer to various diagonal structural elements!), you'll see that it is hard to avoid all ambiguity. Maybe I would use something like "bracing from the floors against buckling" or avoid the term "bracing" altogether.
The terminology seems to be quite floating but if you perform Google image searches for "cross bracing", "diagonal bracing", "lateral bracing" and "horizontal bracing" (all of these seem to refer to various diagonal structural elements!), you'll see that it is hard to avoid all ambiguity. Maybe I would use something like "bracing from the floors against buckling" or avoid the term "bracing" altogether.
newton
Paper AND carpet.
Lots of paper, un"fossilized".
with lots of rubblized concrete, floor beams, no slag.
It cannot, so no molten ANYTHING, especially steel.
Not the least sign of melting on this steel.
Daru
You left out the portions that would answer your stupid question.
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."
And neither the BATF or the FBI found any evidence of explosives.
Face it, THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES OR THERMITE USED ANYWHERE IN THE WTC COMPLEX.
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Paper AND carpet.
Lots of paper, un"fossilized".
with lots of rubblized concrete, floor beams, no slag.
QUOTE
how can paper sit in the midst of what was obviously in a molten state.
It cannot, so no molten ANYTHING, especially steel.
Not the least sign of melting on this steel.
Daru
You left out the portions that would answer your stupid question.
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."
And neither the BATF or the FBI found any evidence of explosives.
Face it, THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES OR THERMITE USED ANYWHERE IN THE WTC COMPLEX.
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 17 2007, 10:45 AM)
Now, you've done it again. Will you leave my "(Zone-" alone?
Regarding the believability of the two-phased model, what do you think of B&V's justification for this assumption? This is on p.7 just below eq.10. I intended to comment on this in a future message. I notice that the discussion is extended a bit in the published version. (Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2007)
Show me an example of, "a disconnected top block staying together and crushing an undamaged lower structure". Then I will give it some thought.
I am also open to "shape-shifting lizards", if someone can offer proof. The (supposed) leaders (and future leaders) of the world do seam primitive in their ability to work out problems (Nuke the bastards before they do it to us).
" alone?Regarding the believability of the two-phased model, what do you think of B&V's justification for this assumption? This is on p.7 just below eq.10. I intended to comment on this in a future message. I notice that the discussion is extended a bit in the published version. (Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2007)
Show me an example of, "a disconnected top block staying together and crushing an undamaged lower structure". Then I will give it some thought.
I am also open to "shape-shifting lizards", if someone can offer proof. The (supposed) leaders (and future leaders) of the world do seam primitive in their ability to work out problems (Nuke the bastards before they do it to us).
I've got a question.
What happened to the planes' engines? Were they found at ground level?
I really don't know the answer, this isn't a rhetorical question.
If they weren't found at ground level, that would imply that they remained in the building(s). If they were intact, wouldn't their huge weight have overloaded the concrete floors that they were sitting on? I would guess that they'd have been so heavy that they would've gone through the floors if they were intact.
If they were in the building(s) and *not* intact, then their weight would've been distributed, but those components would've been spinning at high speed when the engines disintegrated, and that much spinning metal would've chewed up a lot of concrete on their own. (Or chewed through steel structural members if not the concrete.)
Does anyone have any info on the engines?
What happened to the planes' engines? Were they found at ground level?
I really don't know the answer, this isn't a rhetorical question.
If they weren't found at ground level, that would imply that they remained in the building(s). If they were intact, wouldn't their huge weight have overloaded the concrete floors that they were sitting on? I would guess that they'd have been so heavy that they would've gone through the floors if they were intact.
If they were in the building(s) and *not* intact, then their weight would've been distributed, but those components would've been spinning at high speed when the engines disintegrated, and that much spinning metal would've chewed up a lot of concrete on their own. (Or chewed through steel structural members if not the concrete.)
Does anyone have any info on the engines?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 17 2007, 05:17 AM)
Guys, at this point, it looks like we've convinced everyone but the complete lunatics.
There are two or three complete lunatics just now, and maybe a couple that can maybe learn something are posting. There are plenty of lurkers and, anyway, some more people who have been confused and misinformed by the troofers will be along soon...
There are two or three complete lunatics just now, and maybe a couple that can maybe learn something are posting. There are plenty of lurkers and, anyway, some more people who have been confused and misinformed by the troofers will be along soon...
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 17 2007, 05:58 PM)
So why not Klingons??? Steel eating termites???
Other possibilities suggested include
invisible Godzilla
shape-shifting lizards
but nobody likes my theory:
It was GR in the Basement with the G-Ray!
Other possibilities suggested include
invisible Godzilla
shape-shifting lizards
but nobody likes my theory:
It was GR in the Basement with the G-Ray!
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 17 2007, 11:25 AM)
There are two or three complete lunatics just now, and maybe a couple that can maybe learn something are posting. There are plenty of lurkers and, anyway, some more people who have been confused and misinformed by the troofers will be along soon...
Well DBB (I hope OCT believer never get to make the decision), I guess it depends on who defines lunatic (communist considered anyone crazy who did not believe in the system).
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...chologists.html
Well DBB (I hope OCT believer never get to make the decision), I guess it depends on who defines lunatic (communist considered anyone crazy who did not believe in the system).
QUOTE
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Finally, some sane psychologists! Say anyone that believes the governments version of 9-11 should have their head examined
Psychiatrists and Psychologists: Government's 9/11 Story is Crazy
Should people who question the government's version of the events of 9/11 have their heads examined?
Well, the following psychiatrists and psychologists have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false. Moreover, many of these mental health experts have concluded that the government's account is so obviously false that people who believe the government's version are in psychological denial:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
Clinical psychologist, Ed.D., Harvard University Gwendolyn Atwood,
Psychology researcher, M.A., Psychology Victoria Ashley
Psychotherapist, M.S. Clinical Psychology, Greg Henricks
M.S. in educational psychology, Roy Holcombe
M.A. in Counseling Psychology Tova Gabrielle
There are literally thousands of other mental health professionals who have reached the same conclusions. So who is out of touch with reality: those who question 9/11 or those who believe the government's version without question?
Finally, some sane psychologists! Say anyone that believes the governments version of 9-11 should have their head examined
Psychiatrists and Psychologists: Government's 9/11 Story is Crazy
Should people who question the government's version of the events of 9/11 have their heads examined?
Well, the following psychiatrists and psychologists have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false. Moreover, many of these mental health experts have concluded that the government's account is so obviously false that people who believe the government's version are in psychological denial:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
Clinical psychologist, Ed.D., Harvard University Gwendolyn Atwood,
Psychology researcher, M.A., Psychology Victoria Ashley
Psychotherapist, M.S. Clinical Psychology, Greg Henricks
M.S. in educational psychology, Roy Holcombe
M.A. in Counseling Psychology Tova Gabrielle
There are literally thousands of other mental health professionals who have reached the same conclusions. So who is out of touch with reality: those who question 9/11 or those who believe the government's version without question?
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...chologists.html
reasonwhy
It is said that a small percentage of people in the US believe the scientific explanation of the events of 911 are wrong. Evidently an even smaller percentage of those people are psychiatrists, etc.
Since when has the OPINIONS of a few shrinks mattered one bit when conducting scientific investigations of an engineering disaster. I know if I wanted a building built I would consult engineers, not shrinks. The opinions of those completely outside of their areas of expertise are irrelivant.
But insisting that explosives were used when NO evidence for their use exists is just a little bit nutty. And seeing firetrucks where they could not possibly be seen is at best delusional, at worst, insane.
Grumpy
It is said that a small percentage of people in the US believe the scientific explanation of the events of 911 are wrong. Evidently an even smaller percentage of those people are psychiatrists, etc.
Since when has the OPINIONS of a few shrinks mattered one bit when conducting scientific investigations of an engineering disaster. I know if I wanted a building built I would consult engineers, not shrinks. The opinions of those completely outside of their areas of expertise are irrelivant.
But insisting that explosives were used when NO evidence for their use exists is just a little bit nutty. And seeing firetrucks where they could not possibly be seen is at best delusional, at worst, insane.
Grumpy
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 17 2007, 07:11 PM)
Show me an example of, "a disconnected top block staying together and crushing an undamaged lower structure". Then I will give it some thought.
Why wouldn't you give at least a cursory glance to a paper you purport to criticize? Bazant and Verdure do not assume what you claim they do. They make an assumption for the purpose of the mathematical model. They explain why they make this assumption. They do not assume that the towers behaved that way in reality. They even explain why the towers probably did not behave that way.
Did Gordon Ross not make any idealized assumptions in his own model exhibiting collapse-arrest?
Why wouldn't you give at least a cursory glance to a paper you purport to criticize? Bazant and Verdure do not assume what you claim they do. They make an assumption for the purpose of the mathematical model. They explain why they make this assumption. They do not assume that the towers behaved that way in reality. They even explain why the towers probably did not behave that way.
Did Gordon Ross not make any idealized assumptions in his own model exhibiting collapse-arrest?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 17 2007, 07:11 PM)
Daru
You left out the portions that would answer your stupid question.
I always try to get strait to the main point.
You said before, very wisely, that "...Science is looking at the evidence and determining the possibilities through testing."
And Nist did not test it... perhaps that explains why they found no evidence
You left out the portions that would answer your stupid question.
I always try to get strait to the main point.
You said before, very wisely, that "...Science is looking at the evidence and determining the possibilities through testing."
And Nist did not test it... perhaps that explains why they found no evidence
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.