Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[BasqueArch]

Not to mention real world experience. I design a large office building a few years ago.....it required spray-on on the underside of the roof deck. They did it before a lot of the roof work was completed......then they had to do it again because so much had been dislodged simply because people were walking around on the roof.

Same here. You can scrape off the SFRM with your fingers.

 

[jay howard]

It has been years Jay since I read or cared about the NIST report.
The point is no other workable theory exists for
the collapse of these structures and you have not
Provided one.

I'm moved that you realize it's not a workable theory. That's a huge step in the right direction.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

In years past, debunking troofer claims was a brain exercise, (as well as an exercise in internet research) the last couple of years it was entertainment, watch the newest troofer roll out the retread claims. Now it is like trying by a car wreck on the interstate with only the tow trucks left hauling away the debris.

The best years were the years we were thick
In Gravy.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'm moved that you realize it's not a workable theory. That's a huge step in the right direction.

No just lost interest, in the ravent ranting over the years.
I because of your description misunderstood the test, as
a modeled structural integrity test, not a fire proofing test.

 

[ozeco41]

Or, to put it in simple terms which Joe Average already understands intuitively, there's a heckuva difference between removing 20% of a building's support on just one side, and 20% of the support spread evenly around the building. Which is why Joe Average just yawns when a Truther tries to make this argument to him.

Sure but we are not dealing with the reasonable person of legal convenience - we are facing truthers. Who by near definition are truthers because they cannot think. Certainly do not think. See this thread for proof.

And I'm enjoyng myself 'splainin.

The basic physics should help some of the debunkers.

THEN I could go to the next step with the pseudo section modulus/moment of inertia explanations - how it is this column strength/load times the distance from the axis which neutral axis we cannot locate until we do the calcs - so it is complicated re-entrant iterative process. And remember I'm slide rule era.

THEN superimpose the load redistribution where the downwards load applied to each and every column depends on how elastic the Top Block frame needs to be/is to allow it to follow the buckling and getting shorter truss to keep applying the load which is varying with displacement as the elastic features of the Top Block respond to all those other variables.....

And most of the engineers would boggle at that.

So I'll keep it simple - whilst still rigorously proving the point. BUT I will need more that three (rows of) columns to explain 3D load re0distribution.

No prizes for guessing why AFAIK NOBODY in all these discussions has tried to explain the cascade failure for lay persons. And academia still locked into Bazantian 1D.

 

[LSSBB]

No prizes for guessing why AFAIK NOBODY in all these discussions has tried to explain the cascade failure for lay persons. And academia still locked into Bazantian 1D.

I thought M_T tried to explain for the lay person. I for one found his thesis hard to follow, however, due to how it was written, and extraneous material.

 

[ozeco41]

I thought M_T tried to explain for the lay person. I for one found his thesis hard to follow, however, due to how it was written, and extraneous material.

I don't remember - I know he is strong on the "core led" hypothesis and I'm semi persuaded - 70-30 or 60-40 in preference against NIST. Reality is that core led or perimeter led doesn't change the explanation of cascading - only the sequencing. And the core led OR perimeter led aspect changes nothing in the bigger picture - all columns had failed by the time the Top Block was bodily moving down. And the battle was already over by the time the failing columns left less surviving capacity that was needed to support the Top Block. Which was only a second or two before the Top Block falling had failed all those "survivors".

Truthers prefer "core led" for the obvious reason that it allows them to postulate explosive cutting of the core - and makes it harder for debunkers who accept RBoP to DISprove CD. But we can dismiss that as debating trickery.

Since that was one detail M_T has many times disagreed with me over I doubt that he has a full coherent explanation. It is something I've challenged him on a few times so I would expect to remember if he had the answer. I'll look at his "book" as opportunity allows.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And the Gish Galloping AKA "Whack-a-Mole" continues.

By now even jay howard must realise that we know he is wrong - no matter how many times he repeats the errors.

I'm not so sure. I think Jay is suffering from the Irreducible Delusion that NIST constructed a test to see whether the floor assemblies should have failed in the actual fires in WTC1 and 2, and that they conducted this test by heating test assemblies to the highest temperature their equipment could achieve. I think he's convinced himself so completely of this view that he's no longer capable of understanding the concept of standardised testing, and never will be until he can let go of his error. The only way he can carry on at present is by assuming that the rest of the world is wrong, and too stupid to see it; which is, of course, rather ironic.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did NIST have any physical evidence that the fireproofing was dislodged or was it just a theory?

Photographic evidence indicates that fireproofing was removed; laboratory experiments using impacts of similar pieces of debris as that from the airliners, at similar impact speeds, found that fireproofing was easily removed over large areas; and real world experience, including that with at least one other steel-framed building that collapsed due to a contents fire, indicates that fireproofing is easily removed by fairly minor impacts. (I don't have a reference for that last, but IIRC it was the Light and Sound Theatre, which collapsed after a fire, and in which the fireproofing was known to have been knocked off by being bumped by stage flats - there may be something in the forum resources about it.) Overall, it's relatively uncontroversial among reputable engineers that fireproofing would have been very seriously damaged by the airliner impacts.

(I don't mean by that last statement that there aren't 9/11 truthers who disagree with it. There are 9/11 truthers who will disagree with just about anything, however mundane or obvious.)

Dave

 

[Jango]

Photographic evidence indicates that fireproofing was removed; laboratory experiments using impacts of similar pieces of debris as that from the airliners, at similar impact speeds, found that fireproofing was easily removed over large areas; and real world experience, including that with at least one other steel-framed building that collapsed due to a contents fire, indicates that fireproofing is easily removed by fairly minor impacts. (I don't have a reference for that last, but IIRC it was the Light and Sound Theatre, which collapsed after a fire, and in which the fireproofing was known to have been knocked off by being bumped by stage flats - there may be something in the forum resources about it.) Overall, it's relatively uncontroversial among reputable engineers that fireproofing would have been very seriously damaged by the airliner impacts.

(I don't mean by that last statement that there aren't 9/11 truthers who disagree with it. There are 9/11 truthers who will disagree with just about anything, however mundane or obvious.)

Dave

Thank you for the response.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm not so sure. I think Jay is suffering from the Irreducible Delusion that NIST constructed a test to see whether the floor assemblies should have failed in the actual fires in WTC1 and 2, and that they conducted this test by heating test assemblies to the highest temperature their equipment could achieve. I think he's convinced himself so completely of this view that he's no longer capable of understanding the concept of standardised testing, and never will be until he can let go of his error. The only way he can carry on at present is by assuming that the rest of the world is wrong, and too stupid to see it; which is, of course, rather ironic.

Dave

You are probably right.

My personal problem is that I cannot conceive of how anyone can be so obsessed that reason passes them by. Intellectually I comprehend the "faith based" position which is what we see here in our two most active denialists.

But I cannot "put myself in their shoes" - I have little empathy for their position - too many years managing engineers and military training - both of which develop cold blooded objectivity and the need for reasoned argumentation.

So I carry on posting reasoned argument in the vain hope that some of it may sink in. Experience says it won't. It also says they do not compute "reasoned argument". May as well speak hindustani.

In fact one of our protagonists has on several previous occasions asked me "Where are you calcs or FEA?" when I pointed to an error in logic. Anyone who thinks FEA can solve logic has a serious problem, And almost certainly a "NUL" in the mental area called 'thinking' AKA "abstract reasoning". I've seen it many times with engineers who prefer concrete thinking - double entendre intended. In a management position you can use them productively - put them on routine technical tick the boxes jobs and they thrive. But it is the wrong mind set for the complexities of 9/11 forensic engineering.

Bottom line I suppose is that I must be a perennial optimist.

And I enjoy explaining some of the moderately complicated stuff.

 

[jay howard]

You are probably right.

My personal problem is that I cannot conceive of how anyone can be so obsessed that reason passes them by. Intellectually I comprehend the "faith based" position which is what we see here in our two most active denialists.

Although it's somewhat endearing that you look for answers in the psychological space of others, the whole point of referencing physical tests/forensic evidence is to mitigate human irrationality. In fact, you and Dave appear to be petting each other over the idea that you "know" I'm wrong and "know" you're right--which is just another instance of begging the question.

We haven't established that the NIST theory makes any sense yet. And the more you try, the more you all have to make strange statements like "they were measuring the temps of the SFRM", or "NIST doesn't need a theory" or "didn't you see that youtube video? That's a case-closer!" or (still my favorite), "the iron microspheres were the remains of burned human blood." The list of unjustified statements made up in the name of defending the official narrative goes on and on. And I suspect it will continue to grow as long as someone is pushing for a clear reading of NIST's own data!

Never mind the fact that NOT A ONE of you "skeptics" feel the need to call these statements out for the bunk they are.

Neither you nor Dave nor anyone else here has been able to make sense of the fact that an as-built structure in the towers underwent heat, load and time far beyond what the official theory can account for.

Nor can you get past the fact that FIRE/GAS temperatures could not have gotten much hotter than about 1100-1200C for about 10-15 minutes in any given location. That's GAS temps--not STEEL temps, (a concept so slippery, it seems, GlennB's brain cannot grasp onto it).

But these facts, (not mine or anyone else's psychological disposition), have not been reconciled with this "Fire-Driven Cascade Miracle" that supposedly brought down 3 high-rises on a sunny September day.

I have to admit: the psychology of this argument is indeed fascinating. If we were talking about almost anything else in the world, (migration patters of blue whales, Air India 182 crash, what side the bread fell on the floor, etc.), we could count on at least a primary school attempt of aligning facts with guesses. But when it comes to this one issue, you and others throw basic reasoning skills right out the window in favor of defending a theory that has no corroboration in the real world. In fact, it has for all intents and purposes, been ruled out. But according to you and others, this FDCM happened. No matter what the data tell us.

For instance, how do you reconcile the floor truss burn tests? An as-built steel structure, loaded to the max, heated far longer and far hotter than any structure in the towers could have gotten by hydrocarbon fires, and shows 3 inches of sag and some cracked concrete. Where is this FDCM?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your defense says "the scientists didn't intend that test to verify their theory. Therefore, the results do not inform the collapse theory."

And I say: So what? How does the intention of the scientist change the facts of the outcome or the parameters in any way? It doesn't. That's like saying "I did not intend to test for gravity by dropping an apple. I was testing the energy absorbsion of the apple at x distance." If you gathered the data during the test, the results are the same.

The data doesn't care what your intentions are. Tell me, rational one, how does the intention of the UL scientist performing the test alter the collected data?

When your best defenses are based on misunderstandings or flat out lies, perhaps it's time to revise your theory.

 

[Animal]

Although it's somewhat endearing that you look for answers in the psychological space of others, the whole point of referencing physical tests/forensic evidence is to mitigate human irrationality. In fact, you and Dave appear to be petting each other over the idea that you "know" I'm wrong and "know" you're right--which is just another instance of begging the question.

We haven't established that the NIST theory makes any sense yet. And the more you try, the more you all have to make strange statements like "they were measuring the temps of the SFRM", or "NIST doesn't need a theory" or "didn't you see that youtube video? That's a case-closer!" or (still my favorite), "the iron microspheres were the remains of burned human blood." The list of unjustified statements made up in the name of defending the official narrative goes on and on. And I suspect it will continue to grow as long as someone is pushing for a clear reading of NIST's own data!

Never mind the fact that NOT A ONE of you "skeptics" feel the need to call these statements out for the bunk they are.

Neither you nor Dave nor anyone else here has been able to make sense of the fact that an as-built structure in the towers underwent heat, load and time far beyond what the official theory can account for.

Nor can you get past the fact that FIRE/GAS temperatures could not have gotten much hotter than about 1100-1200C for about 10-15 minutes in any given location. That's GAS temps--not STEEL temps, (a concept so slippery, it seems, GlennB's brain cannot grasp onto it).

But these facts, (not mine or anyone else's psychological disposition), have not been reconciled with this "Fire-Driven Cascade Miracle" that supposedly brought down 3 high-rises on a sunny September day.

I have to admit: the psychology of this argument is indeed fascinating. If we were talking about almost anything else in the world, (migration patters of blue whales, Air India 182 crash, what side the bread fell on the floor, etc.), we could count on at least a primary school attempt of aligning facts with guesses. But when it comes to this one issue, you and others throw basic reasoning skills right out the window in favor of defending a theory that has no corroboration in the real world. In fact, it has for all intents and purposes, been ruled out. But according to you and others, this FDCM happened. No matter what the data tell us.

For instance, how do you reconcile the floor truss burn tests? An as-built steel structure, loaded to the max, heated far longer and far hotter than any structure in the towers could have gotten by hydrocarbon fires, and shows 3 inches of sag and some cracked concrete. Where is this FDCM?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your defense says "the scientists didn't intend that test to verify their theory. Therefore, the results do not inform the collapse theory."

And I say: So what? How does the intention of the scientist change the facts of the outcome or the parameters in any way? It doesn't. That's like saying "I did not intend to test for gravity by dropping an apple. I was testing the energy absorbsion of the apple at x distance." If you gathered the data during the test, the results are the same.

The data doesn't care what your intentions are. Tell me, rational one, how does the intention of the UL scientist performing the test alter the collected data?

When your best defenses are based on misunderstandings or flat out lies, perhaps it's time to revise your theory.

Wow.....another stinking steaming high pile of gish gallop.

The fact remains that the tests you repeatedly claim prove NIST wrong were tests of the DESIGNED system.....NOT the real world condition that existed on 9-11. No amount of "walls of text" and higher piles of gish gallop will change that fact.

99.7% of relevant professionals believe you are wrong. No amount of hadwaving will change that fact......nor will harping on minutia. Troofers remain the lunatic fringe.

 

[JayUtah]

We haven't established that the NIST theory makes any sense yet.

Who's "we?" You are alone, and the near unamity of the relevant qualified profession does agree that the NIST theory makes sense.

Never mind the fact that NOT A ONE of you "skeptics" feel the need to call these statements out for the bunk they are.

That's right; not a one of us agrees with your accusations or the basis underlying them. And we have explained at length why we do not. The rest of the Truther world -- ten years ago -- felt that they could not overcome those explanations and abandoned the "NIST testing disproved the results" claim. Your resurrection of it doesn't change any of that. It serves only to spin Truther debates in inconsequential venues and perpetuate the illusion of relevance.

I have to admit: the psychology of this argument is indeed fascinating.

Yes, but not for the reasons you imagine.

For instance, how do you reconcile the floor truss burn tests?

By the same means we have reconciled them for the past several pages, despite your unwillingness to comprehend it. You don't understand the ASTM E119 tests, how they are conducted, why they are conducted, what they are meant to show, and what information NIST proposed to obtain by conducting them.

Your colleagues ten years ago realized they couldn't prevail, due to the same deficiency. The engineering world ten years ago properly connected the burn tests to their place in the overall NIST work.

When your best defenses are based on misunderstandings or flat out lies, perhaps it's time to revise your theory.

Heal thyself.

 

[ozeco41]

@jay howard. nonsense noted.

Let me know if you ever decide to get serious - I could re-open my offer to assist you in those areas of physics you do not understand.

I understand the physics and can explain it so I'll repeat my offer just this once:

If you decide to get serious I am prepared to explain the relevant physics one issue at a time starting with either:
A) Any rational response from you to one of my reasoned explanations of why each and every column which failed in axial overload was "hot enough" to fail; OR
B) your rational response to my explanation of why load redistribution following a removal of a proportion of columns is always WORSE than the proportion of removed columns.

Both those topics are central aspects needed to comprehend the WTC Twin towers collapses which you clearly do not understand.

I have specifically and rigorously addressed each of those topics with rational argument. I challenge you to respond rationally to my explanations.

Your call. Why not get serious and learn?

 

[jay howard]

You seem to think the word "fail" is ONLY something like fracture or buckle. The ENTIRE frame can fail if, for example steel members expand and push columns out of alignment or shear bolts and fracture welds... leading to loss of axial capacity... load redistribution and so on. The sagging trusses may not have been the straw that broke the camel's back. That was only one theory of NIST.

Ironically the floor system and those wimpy trusses DID play a role in the collapse... progression... but probably not in the initiation of it. As such stone cold trusses and floors "failed" from superimposed massive dynamic loads.

It sounds like you're inserting a whole new theory of collapse that doesn't depend on the sagging of the trusses. Is that correct? Where has this little gem been hiding all this time, and why wait until now to pull it out and show it?

Seriously, you just made this up. It's not in the NIST report. In essence, you are submitting that the NIST theory as it is vaguely laid out in the report, doesn't work the way NIST described it. Basically, you're saying "sure, the trusses didn't sag as much as NIST said they did, but that's not important. What's important is that a lot of forces were acting in chaotic ways which we cannot understand--only to say that you're wrong."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this alternative theory you just proposed to save the underlying premise of official narrative, (i.e., that heat-driven cascade events proceeded from office fires), is one for which you cannot put your finger on the initial joint (or joint complex) that failed, nor do you know how hot it would need to be nor for how long, but that's what definitely happened.

Is that a fair assessment? If not, please fill in the blanks on this new attempt to describe what happened.

Do you propose to know how hot it got for this FDCM to proceed? Or at what location(s)?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Tell me, rational one, how does the intention of the UL scientist performing the test alter the collected data?

It doesn't. The collected data does not attempt to cover the temperature range actually experienced in the fires in the twin towers, so it's unsurprising that it doesn't actually cover that temperature range. The collected data in fact covers a lower temperature range chosen to compare the performance of different assemblies for the purpose of assigning them an indicative fire rating.

It looks like I was right about that irreducible delusion; Jay Howard labours under the incorrect belief that the NIST tests were intended to and did reproduce the actual conditions of the fires in the WTC, and is incapable of examining that error rationally. Further discussion with him, as long experience shows, is no longer of any value; the only thing worth doing is to point out to others, where appropriate, what his error is.

Dave

 

[LSSBB]

It sounds like you're inserting a whole new theory of collapse that doesn't depend on the sagging of the trusses. Is that correct? Where has this little gem been hiding all this time, and why wait until now to pull it out and show it?

Seriously, you just made this up. It's not in the NIST report. In essence, you are submitting that the NIST theory as it is vaguely laid out in the report, doesn't work the way NIST described it. Basically, you're saying "sure, the trusses didn't sag as much as NIST said they did, but that's not important. What's important is that a lot of forces were acting in chaotic ways which we cannot understand--only to say that you're wrong."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this alternative theory you just proposed to save the underlying premise of official narrative, (i.e., that heat-driven cascade events proceeded from office fires), is one for which you cannot put your finger on the initial joint (or joint complex) that failed, nor do you know how hot it would need to be nor for how long, but that's what definitely happened.

Is that a fair assessment? If not, please fill in the blanks on this new attempt to describe what happened.

Do you propose to know how hot it got for this FDCM to proceed? Or at what location(s)?

Appaarently you are under the mistaken impression that all your challengers are NIST defenders, Jay.

That's ok, you are in alignment with nearly all Truthers I have encountered.

 

[NoahFence]

Seriously, you just made this up. It's not in the NIST report.

How would you even know? You never read it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Basically, you're saying "sure, the trusses didn't sag as much as NIST said they did, but that's not important. What's important is that a lot of forces were acting in chaotic ways which we cannot understand--only to say that you're wrong."

You do realise that the degree of floor truss sag was an observation from photographs, and therefore an input rather than an output of modelling, right? Or is that another of your irreducible delusions?

Dave