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

[jay howard]

Since all we're getting is a screed of repeated original assertions...

My assertions are data points from the NIST report. Time/temperature curves created by UL burn tests--both the truss system burn tests and the office workstation burn tests.

The data produced by these tests give us invaluable information about the possible conditions for the towers when they fell.

So far, so good, yea?

Now, what happens when you take their own data and apply it to their own theory about how the towers collapsed?

The workstation burn tests demonstrated that the Heat Release Rate reached a maximum of <3 GW at any point in time, no matter how the material was arranged. Test versions that burned hotter at the beginning lasted for a shorter period of time--as would be expected with a consistent fuel load.

One of the takeaways is that no matter what they substituted for fuel, so long as it was hydrocarbon, the temperatures got no hotter than about 1100C for about 10 min in any given location.

Now, whether you think the collapse progressed from the floor trusses or somewhere else, that leaves only a tiny window of opportunity for the steel to heat to critical temperatures necessary for this "Fire-Driven Cascade" thing to happen. Right? Any of this you disagree with this so far?

So what about the floor truss tests? What can we reliably understand as having happened?

Their were 4 tests. Of these only 1 did not have the sensors break before the end of the test run. This one was a 35 ft section, built to specs, covered in 3/4 inch SFRM and loaded to the maximum rated lbs/sqft.

It ran for 2.5 hours--longer than either tower stood. The truss STEEL was above 700C for the last 66 minutes. It was above 800C for about 50 minutes. Strength/temperature curves put the steel strength at about 10% at 800C.

3 inches of sag. Some concrete spawling. But no "cascade miracle."

So, my "assertion" is really a question: If you subscribe to the FDCM theory, and we all know you do, are you saying the STEEL in the towers got hotter than 800C for more than 50 minutes? If so, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

From all the data I just referenced, to which intention is irrelevant, it would take an energy source above and beyond the office materials to get to a temperature that would cause mechanical failure--as the truss held firm at 10% strength over 50 minutes.

All of this is NIST's data. Not mine. I just put the data in sequence.

I don't know whether any further discussion is fruitful.

Sounds like someone is out of excuses for defending the official narrative.

Repeating one's original claims doesn't suddenly make the existing rebuttals go away, or require new ones.

That's exactly correct. So stop referencing the "intent" of the tests. No one cares. It bears not at all on the information produced.

Engagement with well-entrenched litigants rarely has the effect of changing the proponent's mind.

The nice thing about scientific claims--if that is indeed what we're discussing--is that they need only be understood:

• 800C STEEL for an HOUR
• which cannot be reproduced with 1100C flames for 10 minutes
• which much more intense heat for longer did not produce a heat-driven failure of any kind

Therefore, what conditions are stipulated by which the WTC towers failed from a "heat-driven" anything?

You don't have a good answer because this is check and mate. If NIST is right about their own test data, they must be wrong about heat being the cause of the collapse--or at least that the hydrocarbon fires produced the heat necessary for failure.

I'd want to run away too, if I were in your position.

 

[Hellbound]

I'd want to run away too, if I were in your position.

If we don't, will you bite our ankles off?

 

[NoahFence]

Boy, this latest crop is real boring....

 

[Hellbound]

"I've cut your argument off!"

"No you haven't!"

"What's that then?!"

"It's a false flag! Have at you!"

 

[GlennB]

No, you said it couldn't have been the core as you also said the exterior was bowed inward for minutes before the collapse. The NIST model couldn't produce the inward bowing with sagging trusses.

I am asking you to try and be coherent now and tell us what you think caused the inward bowing if you don't think it was the core and NIST couldn't produce it with sagging trusses.

He was pointing out that the slow, early inward bowing negates your core-led CD theory. Your CD has to be abrupt and doesn't allow for gradual bowing.

I think he (?) first pointed this out about 5 years ago. Others have done so many times since. You have no answer to this point and can only change the subject.

Or you could prove me wrong - reconcile your CD hypothesis with the observed bowing. I'm expecting *crickets* or *random waffle*.

 

[ozeco41]

He was pointing out that the slow, early inward bowing negates your core-led CD theory. Your CD has to be abrupt and doesn't allow for gradual bowing.

I think he (?) first pointed this out about 5 years ago. Others have done so many times since. You have no answer to this point and can only change the subject.

Or you could prove me wrong - reconcile your CD hypothesis with the observed bowing. I'm expecting *crickets* or *random waffle*.

Do you remember Tony's excursion into "Delayed Action Gravity"?

He postulated that cutting core columns caused floor joists to pull perimeter inwards resulting in the "Inwards Bowing"

THEN - minutes later - the collapse.

I pointed out that he was overlooking one element that his "theory" relied on. It was missing a link in the causality. It needed "Delayed Action Gravity".

That was too much for even Tony's fertile imagination and limited grasp of engineering physics. He immediately relegated core caused inward bowing to the back burner - probably until he hoped we had forgotten the bit of idiocy.

Potentially "Delayed Action Gravity" could have been more fun that "The Jolt That Never Was".

 

[jay howard]

Not sure who said that, but that sounds like standard truther MO.

Apparently, some here, you included, have adopted that gem of a strategy: "Here, look at this. It proves my point. Case closed."

False. It makes a lot of difference in the setup, because it does not resemble the conditions of the fires in the towers.

Were the lab temperatures higher or lower than in the towers, in your opinion?

You've been told time and again that the tests were made with the insulation in place.

And as the test administrators wrote, the SFRM slowed the rate at which the steel accumulated heat, as well as slowing the rate at which it dissipated that heat. But if steel is already 800C, what purpose is SFRM serving at that time?

You know what does uneven heating do to materials, especially metals like steel, right? With the insulation in place, the heating is more gradual, giving time for the heat to travel from one end of e.g. the truss' wire to the other. Without insulation, or with partial insulation, heating is more uneven, and causes far worse sagging.

So you think all that needs to be done is to conduct a test of the same structure without SFRM? I think that's a good idea.

 

[ozeco41]

Boy, this latest crop is real boring....

Who do you blame?

The Trolls or the troll feeders?

None of them have any intention of being serious.

 

[JayUtah]

Now, what happens when you take their own data and apply...

You apply it improperly. Just as your predecessors applied it improperly and eventually abandoned that line of reasoning.

I'd want to run away too, if I were in your position.

Who's running away? My belief on this reflects the view of the relevant professionals -- the vast, overwhelming, near-unanimous majority of them. You have run away from them to ISF because you can't get their attention. We're telling you why you can't get their attention.

 

[JayUtah]

So you think...

He said nothing of the sort. The more your foist your contrived expectations on everyone, the more obvious it is that you are uncomfortable with reality.

 

[DGM]

Apparently, some here, you included, have adopted that gem of a strategy: "Here, look at this. It proves my point. Case closed."

Strategy to what end? You come to us with an unproven statement claiming victory when we point out you first need to prove your point.

Personally, I believe you ("truthers") will continue this strategy forever. I also believe you will continue with the same success you've enjoyed to date. You will continue to blame us for your failures.

Are you winning? Do you think your strategy is a good one?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

He was pointing out that the slow, early inward bowing negates your core-led CD theory. Your CD has to be abrupt and doesn't allow for gradual bowing.

I think he (?) first pointed this out about 5 years ago. Others have done so many times since. You have no answer to this point and can only change the subject.

Or you could prove me wrong - reconcile your CD hypothesis with the observed bowing. I'm expecting *crickets* or *random waffle*.

Dave is the person who can't answer because he doesn't think a core led collapse was responsible for the bowing since he says the bowing occurred minutes before the collapse. He then has the conundrum of the NIST model not producing the inward bowing with sagging trusses to deal with.

His answer to what he thinks caused the inward bowing is no answer because he has a timing problem and his explanation is not coherent.

 

[BasqueArch]

Physicists Astounded​

Some Guy on the Internet Proves​

By Sheer and Repeated Force of Will​

That Catenaries do not Produce Horizontal Forces



​

http://homepage.math.uiowa.edu/~stroyan/CTLC3rdEd/ProjectsOldCD/estroyan/cd/13/​

 

[DGM]

Dave is the person who can't answer because he doesn't think a core led collapse was responsible for the bowing since he says the bowing occurred minutes before the collapse. He then has the conundrum of the NIST model not producing the inward bowing with sagging trusses to deal with.

His answer to what he thinks caused the inward bowing is no answer because he has a timing problem and his explanation is not coherent.

Did you actually read what Dave posted? Everyone else did and you're looking like a fool that needs to bail out a sinking boat.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Did you actually read what Dave posted? Everyone else did and you're looking like a fool that needs to bail out a sinking boat.

Dave can't answer what he thinks caused the inward bowing because he has an incoherence with when the core dropped, when he thinks the inward bowing started, and the fact that the NIST model couldn't do it with sagging trusses.

It may be a little tough for someone like you, who also seems to have trouble making a coherent argument, to understand why Dave has an incoherence problem.

 

[jaydeehess]

Since the inward bowing of the exterior columns was also an observation, and occurred progressively minutes prior to the initiation of final collapse, your hypothesis suggests that the core failed gradually up until the point where the structure became unstable; in other words, you have advanced quite a strong argument against a controlled collapse initiation.

Dave

The NIST model could not produce the inward bowing of the exterior columns with sagging trusses. What do you think caused it?

You're missing the point. If you're right about core failure causing the bowing, then it's an argument against CD.

Dave

No, you said it couldn't have been the core as you also said the exterior was bowed inward for minutes before the collapse. The NIST model couldn't produce the inward bowing with sagging trusses.

I am asking you to try and be coherent now and tell us what you think caused the inward bowing if you don't think it was the core and NIST couldn't produce it with sagging trusses.

Dave is the person who can't answer because he doesn't think a core led collapse was responsible for the bowing since he says the bowing occurred minutes before the collapse. He then has the conundrum of the NIST model not producing the inward bowing with sagging trusses to deal with.

His answer to what he thinks caused the inward bowing is no answer because he has a timing problem and his explanation is not coherent.

This topic goes quite a way back, and you have yet to reconcile explosives use in causing a gradual inward bowing by core column severing.

If it is somehow possible to produce such gradual shortening of columns using high explosives then that explains the missing jolt in your CD too. Now pray tell us how gradual column shortening is accomplished.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This topic goes quite a way back, and you have yet to reconcile explosives use in causing a gradual inward bowing by core column severing.

If it is somehow possible to produce such gradual shortening of columns using high explosives then that explains the missing jolt in your CD too. Now pray tell us how gradual column shortening is accomplished.

It wasn't gradual shortening of the core that pulled the exterior inward. The core in the North Tower dropped abruptly before anything else, as evidenced by the antenna going down before the exterior. The coherent explanation has to do with when the inward bowing actually occurred.

Dave can't give a coherent explanation because he has to stay with the NIST story that the inward bowing occurred minutes before the abrupt core drop. The problem for Dave and NIST is that they couldn't do it with sagging trusses so they just leave it as an incoherent explanation and try not to talk about it and hope nobody notices. Hence, no answer from Dave as to what he thinks caused the inward bowing.

 

[ozeco41]

Physicists Astounded​

Some Guy on the Internet Proves​

By Sheer and Repeated Force of Will​

That Catenaries do not Produce Horizontal Forces



​

http://homepage.math.uiowa.edu/~stroyan/CTLC3rdEd/ProjectsOldCD/estroyan/cd/13/​

Some years back I claimed:
"catenary sag is an effective force multiplier" - which a couple of truthers denied - pretended they didn’t comprehend. And, sadly, both of them engineers.

I counter claimed that my (then) 5yo grandson could understand it.

A couple of days later grandson visited and we did the experiment.

A catenary between two columns.

A polarity change to use horizontal vector modelling vertical pull of gravity.

Modelling the "inwards pull" induced by the "catenary sag force":

The comparson with force directly applied to cause "Inward Bowing" of the "column":

Subsequent interview of the experimental candidate:
Q: "which was easier to move the tree, Aiden, pushing the rope ot pushing the tree?"
A: "Pushing the rope made it move grandpa - I couldn't move the tree when I pushed it."

Glossary of language modifications to suit vocabulary of the volunteer participant:
Tree == column
Rope == catenary
Move == inwards bowing
etc.

The more distant "column" was of significantly smaller section modulus/moment of inertia
Section modulus/MoI == thinner

Q: "Which tree moved further Aiden"?
A: "that one Grandpa - its thinner."

I didn't explore the aspects of bending moment of columns subjected to horizontal force.
...or the more esoteric aspects of section properties.

 

[DGM]

Dave can't answer what he thinks caused the inward bowing because he has an incoherence with when the core dropped, when he thinks the inward bowing started, and the fact that the NIST model couldn't do it with sagging trusses.

Daves not biting on the strawman you created. Everyone sees this. Your dodge is transparent as glass.

It may be a little tough for someone like you, who also seems to have trouble making a coherent argument, to understand why Dave has an incoherence problem.

I know it's troubling to you that a non-engineer like myself has no problem pointing out your inconsistencies. Posters also notice you attack me and never address what I say.

Explain again why you post here? Are we the only ones still listening.

 

[DGM]

It wasn't gradual shortening of the core that pulled the exterior inward. The core in the North Tower dropped abruptly before anything else, as evidenced by the antenna going down before the exterior. The coherent explanation has to do with when the inward bowing actually occurred.

Dave can't give a coherent explanation because he has to stay with the NIST story that the inward bowing occurred minutes before the abrupt core drop. The problem for Dave and NIST is that they couldn't do it with sagging trusses so they just leave it as an incoherent explanation and try not to talk about it. hence, no answer from Dave as to what he thinks caused the inward bowing.

Silently....................

You're adding more complexity. How much kit was not noticed now?

Let me guess, the elevator guys rigged it.