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

[jay howard]

While the reports are not perfect (and never will be) they pretty much nail the cause of the collapse.

Yea? And what's that? Heat? Could you tell me what the answer is, because I read the report(s), and I don't see it in there.

You didn't read the reports. Please.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Yea? And what's that? Heat? Could you tell me what the answer is, because I read the report(s), and I don't see it in there.

You didn't read the reports. Please.

I have read both reports cover to back at least a couple of time. Being a licensed structural engineer, at least understand them.

 

[beachnut]

... [*]If the peak temperatures of about 1100C lasted only 20 minutes, how hot could bare steel have gotten?

Hot enough to fail... this is why fire fighters are killed in steel frame buildings; steel fails in fire - did you fail to get some practical knowledge instead of falling for the dumbest claims in history made up by failed humans mocking the murder of thousands with lies of CD and the idiotic inside job.

Why do you ask questions and fail to answer anything? Can't you do the reserach to understand steel? no

You have no practical knowledge of steel and fire, and it shows with your gullibility to fall for the evidence free lie of CD. Here is your failed logic...

... [*]If heat caused the "cascade failure" we saw on 9/11, why can't more intense heat cause this effect to manifest on identical structures tested in the lab?

LOL, the lab samples were insulated against fire. Failure to read NIST, and understand NIST's goals. Big error, you keep making.

...and after 3 seconds of deliberation, we come to the most important takeaway from the failure of the NIST explanation:

Oh, no doubt you took 3 seconds because you have the conclusion of CD already made. You take 3 seconds and skip 10,000 pages of NIST, all known fire science, and all knowledge of steel, to form a delusional lie of CD based on zero evidence. You can't even explain how the CD was done, not one page.

... [*]If office fires couldn't have caused the destruction of the towers, what did?

You make up the lie fire did not do it, and make up a delusional fantasy it was CD. A CD which you can't explain what did it, or how it was done - plus you can't say who did it; you can't explain who pre-planned the intentional murder of over 10,000 in the WTC towers.

19 terrorists used four planes by faking hijacking to surprise murder thousands. They failed when fellow Americans figure out 911 in minutes, a task you can't do after 13 years of spreading BS.


This is the truth of 911 truth...

...and after 3 seconds of deliberation, ...

This is the time 911 truth spends to come up with and spread lies to mock the murders by 19 terrorists. The truth comes out.

No legit reason yet, only 3 seconds of making up lies based on nonsense.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Still think a person's intent <snip>

Your problem is similar, but not the same as Tony's. Tony's error would have been corrected about 70% of the way if he treated his criticism as one aimed at a limiting case instead of treating a limiting case a s reality. In your case, it's testing parameters, and standards which cannot, and will not serve as a replication of the WTC conditions as you believe it should have done. If you want to continue chasing a straw man argument, go for it, but if you want to make a more legitimate point half of the error in your argument would go away by actually knowing the difference. Consider this a helpful tip, instead of an insult

 

[jay howard]

This is not a "majority rules" argument.

I agree. Tell LSSBB.


Original Large Numbers fallacy committed by MileHighMadness.

My mistake.

 

[jay howard]

I have read both reports cover to back at least a couple of time. Being a licensed structural engineer, at least understand them.

So what's the answer? The best answer I saw in their reports was that heat caused the collapses. Is that what you got too?

 

[beachnut]

I agree. Tell LSSBB.

911 truth pathetic 0.1 percent of all engineers who have the CD fantasy, offer no evidence. Evidence Rules, the majority of the evidence Rules, not the delusional fantasy of CD. 911 truth has the backing of zero evidence, and a bunch of failed engineers who signed a petition who do nothing but sign a petition exposing their ignorance.

The evidence rules, and 2+2=4 remains the majority due to evidence, math.

911 truth can't come up with a legit reason to question anything 911, since their conclusions are fantasy based on ignorance. 13 years of failure.

911 truth has a failed CD fantasy, and failed to contact the FBI and give them the overwhelming evidence because 911 truth has only trash talk of CD. The overwhelming evidence is a another lie, part of the failed CD fantasy.

 

[JayUtah]

I agree. Tell LSSBB.

You misunderstand both his post and mine. When faced with the fact that the experts in the field in which you're making claims do not accept your argument in the least, you simply say you're right and they're wrong. I'm not sure you understand how frankly arrogant that sounds. It's not a convincing argument.

I asked you a question in my post. Which explanation, of the two I presented, is the most parsimonious? It's not a meaningless question.

 

[MileHighMadness]

So what's the answer? The best answer I saw in their reports was that heat caused the collapses. Is that what you got too?

Yes...heat caused the collapses. The heat weakened the steel until we got the first localized failure. Then the large mass of the buildings took over, potential energy converted into kinetic energy, triggering the progressive global collapse.

But you knew that...you're just jerking everyone's chain, because you can. I'm beginning to wonder if you are a true believer. I know Richard Gage isn't a true believer, he is just into the truth movement to make money.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually its one of the things TSz gets right, and wrong at the same time. He makes the assumption that the official scenario is that the towers failed by Progressive Column Failure. That's incorrect.

He knows that the most likely scenario is that of massive overload of floors, trusses/beams, and connections to the columns.

OTOH he makes a good case that the towers did not fail due primarily to column failure. Something many of us agree with, and have not argued for.

What he does wrong is that he assumes that the resistance of the lower structure remains constant and equal to the weight of the upper block throughout the first part of the collapse, based on the observation that the downward acceleration is constant. His assumption is equivalent to the assumption that the downward acceleration is zero; in other words, his starting assumption is that the structure cannot collapse. Starting from that assumption, it's hardly surprising that he reaches the conclusion that the structure cannot collapse. It's got the appearance of a good case, but it fails on the fact that the resistance in the initial phases of the collapse is assigned an impossible value. As for the 25% reduced resistance case, where does that number come from? There's not even an attempt at justification. As a result, even the central thesis of the paper, that PCF is an impossible collapse mechanism, is not proven by the analysis. Sorry, but it's simply a bad piece of analysis, however agreeable you may find the conclusion.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

Original Large Numbers fallacy committed by MileHighMadness.

No. It's neither a large-numbers fallacy nor an appeal to the masses. The body in question is exactly the body of appropriately qualified and licensed professionals that exists. It is neither a statistically insignificant sample (as it is the entire relevant population), nor is it the "masses" (because it has a relevant qualitative definition).

Further, the qualitative correctness of your claims has already been tested. Twice. What you refuse to acknowledge is that your proposal isn't new or untested. It was an issue raised years ago, fully discussed and debated, and then abandoned by the Truth movement. It was just as unconvincing back then as it is now.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Fortunately, the amount of people who think 1+1=3 does not change the answer to it.

Jay, while we're on the subject of arithmetic, did you remember to post your values for the energy required to cause collapse and the energy available to cause collapse? You sounded very sure that one was bigger than the other, and I can't imagine you'd just make that up, so I'm eager to see what numbers you used to reach that conclusion. Would you mind posting them please?

Dave

 

[LSSBB]

I agree. Tell LSSBB.


Original Large Numbers fallacy committed by MileHighMadness.

My mistake.

Don't tell me. I already understand polls don't mean truth. Was there a second shooter to kill Kennedy?

Funny that you never seem to address me directly lately.

 

[beachnut]

I agree. Tell LSSBB.


Original Large Numbers fallacy committed by MileHighMadness.

My mistake.

911 truth is the one bragging about thousands of engineers and experts agree with the CD fantasy; yet the petition is BS, nonsense asking for a new investigation which fails to support the delusional fantasy of CD.

Thus 911 truth has no real support for CD, no evidence, no science, a few failed engineers fooled into signing a BS petition based on ignorance.

Why can't your CD claim find any support past the BS petition signed by less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. In fact, it seems to be 0.01 percent or less.

Have you done the math; no you did 3 seconds of hand waving, and declare it was CD - but you can't explain CD. '

Why can't 911 truth get reality based support? Where do you find silent explosives? Why was no steel damaged by explosives and thermite?

 

[ozeco41]

What he does wrong is that he assumes that the resistance of the lower structure remains constant and equal to the weight of the upper block throughout the first part of the collapse, based on the observation that the downward acceleration is constant. His assumption is equivalent to the assumption that the downward acceleration is zero; in other words, his starting assumption is that the structure cannot collapse. Starting from that assumption, it's hardly surprising that he reaches the conclusion that the structure cannot collapse. It's got the appearance of a good case, but it fails on the fact that the resistance in the initial phases of the collapse is assigned an impossible value. As for the 25% reduced resistance case, where does that number come from? There's not even an attempt at justification. As a result, even the central thesis of the paper, that PCF is an impossible collapse mechanism, is not proven by the analysis. Sorry, but it's simply a bad piece of analysis, however agreeable you may find the conclusion.
Dave

Take care that you are not disagreeing because of a conflation. I'm not referring to THAT conclusion and I don't think JDH is - the one we are commenting on - on this and several previous occasions - is not "the" conclusion you are referring to.

There are multiple aspects of the paper. I'm tempted to read it again and separate them. It certainly illustrates Tony's commitment to making initial assumptions to suit his predetermined end objective -- then arguing in a circle to prove his starting assumption.

One claim is that Zhou (? - he was the student) got the weight of fallen block wrong.
-- Am I right that he claims that point?
-- I've never checked the maths BUT if that much is correct it pulls the rug from under the NIST explanation supporting "global collapse was inevitable".

-- Doesn't mean NIST was wrong - means NIST was right for the wrong reasons since later informal analyses (I'm not aware of any formal ones) have shown "global collapse inevitable" due to the actual collapse mechanism.

That aspect is one of the "delicious ironies" that amuse me.

Another one is that the paper rebuts Tony's arguments for Missing Jolt. Despite the double/triple negative construction it attacks the Bazantian basis on which Tony built "Missing Jolt'.

I'm not sure what the formal logic error could be of multiple layers of self supporting erors. Can a false argument legitimately rebut a false argument which supported a falseargument.... PRobably not but Tony's support of the adopted premises damages his credibility - he is disagreeing with his own paper even if the new paper is wrong.

Damn it. Since references keep coming up I will have to drag my way through the paper....Again.

Maybe later this PM - time for brekkie.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Fortunately, most structural engineers and architects who design high rise steel buildings for a living understand they are very vulnerable to collapse due to fire. That’s why they put fire proofing on the steel members, and install sprinkler systems throughout the building.

Over 21,000 professionals worked on the NIST reports for WTC 1, 2 & 7. While the reports are not perfect (and never will be) they pretty much nail the cause of the collapse.

The truth movement is pretty much dead, long live logic and reason...

When did fireproofing with insulative material on all structural steel in high-rise buildings become a common thing in their design?

When did sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings become a common thing in their design?

Where did you get the information that 21,000 professionals worked on the NIST reports for WTC 1, 2, and 7?

 

[DGM]

When did fireproofing with insulative material on all structural steel in high-rise buildings become a common thing in their design?
When did sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings become a common thing in their design?

Where did you get the information that 21,000 professionals worked on the NIST reports for WTC 1, 2, and 7?

More or less from the start of building high-rises. (sprinklers later)

Masonry was used early on but the weight penalty drove engineers to design lighter products. Funny you don't know this.

Way back in 1931:
http://www.buildings.com/article-de...-state-building-an-innovative-skyscraper.aspx

The fire-detection system in the building has come a long way since 1931. “When the building opened, there were call boxes; they were on every floor, and they made a ‘bong’ sound when manually activated. If [the fire] was on the third floor, it would bong three times so that people would know where [it] was,” explains Ruth. In 1998, a state-of-the-art audio warning and strobe light guidance system was installed. But, much of the building’s solid fire protection stems from the way it was built. “The steel frame of the building was protected by iron oxide and linseed oil paint when it was delivered from the steel mill, and then it was covered with an asphalt coat to resist it from breaking down when it was brought into contact with cement,” Ruth describes. “And, all the steel columns are fireproofed with cinder concrete, so all the steel is encased in concrete, which, of course, makes the building not only strong, but more fireproof.”

 

[MileHighMadness]

When did fireproofing with insulative material on all structural steel in high-rise buildings become a common thing in their design?

When did sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings become a common thing in their design?

Where did you get the information that 21,000 professionals worked on the NIST reports for WTC 1, 2, and 7?

1. First fireproofing used in building construction in 1827, Charleston, SC. Became common in steel buildings, late 1800 to very early 1900.

2. First fire sprinkler system patented in 1874, common in buildings ever since.

3. From the NIST website.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Take care that you are not disagreeing because of a conflation. I'm not referring to THAT conclusion and I don't think JDH is - the one we are commenting on - on this and several previous occasions - is not "the" conclusion you are referring to.

There are multiple aspects of the paper. I'm tempted to read it again and separate them. It certainly illustrates Tony's commitment to making initial assumptions to suit his predetermined end objective -- then arguing in a circle to prove his starting assumption.

One claim is that Zhou (? - he was the student) got the weight of fallen block wrong.
-- Am I right that he claims that point?
-- I've never checked the maths BUT if that much is correct it pulls the rug from under the NIST explanation supporting "global collapse was inevitable".

-- Doesn't mean NIST was wrong - means NIST was right for the wrong reasons since later informal analyses (I'm not aware of any formal ones) have shown "global collapse inevitable" due to the actual collapse mechanism.

That aspect is one of the "delicious ironies" that amuse me.

Another one is that the paper rebuts Tony's arguments for Missing Jolt. Despite the double/triple negative construction it attacks the Bazantian basis on which Tony built "Missing Jolt'.

I'm not sure what the formal logic error could be of multiple layers of self supporting erors. Can a false argument legitimately rebut a false argument which supported a falseargument.... PRobably not but Tony's support of the adopted premises damages his credibility - he is disagreeing with his own paper even if the new paper is wrong.

Damn it. Since references keep coming up I will have to drag my way through the paper....Again.

Maybe later this PM - time for brekkie.

The North Tower upper section mass figures of 58 x 10e6 kg in the Bazant and Zhou paper and the 54 x 10e6 kg in the later Bazant papers were wrong.

Some of this may have been due to the number of stories in the upper section being mistaken as 14 or 15 stories (it was actually 12 stories as the failure initiated at the 98th floor), but it seems most of it was an exaggeration by him using the maximum design load, not the in-service load.

The actual in-service load mass for the actual 12 story upper section can be calculated using values given in the NIST report as 33 x 10e6 kg, which equates to 2.75 x 10e6 kg per story.

Interestingly, the correct mass per story was actually discerned by frequency analysis in the addendum to the Bazant and Zhou paper where on the upper right of page 7 they determine that 44% of the mass was equivalent to 141 x 10e6 kg. Considering 44% of 117 stories it gives a total mass of 320 x 10e6 kg or 2.74 x 10e6 kg per story, which is very close to the value found in the NIST report. See http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

The question is why did Bazant inflate the mass? Unfortunately, I think it is the same reason he used free fall through the first story and that would be to increase the kinetic energy of the upper section.

Bazant also wildly underestimated the impacted story mass at just 0.627 x 10e6 kg in his conservation of momentum equation. He was easily caught there, as in his earlier papers he used a value of 3.87 x 10e6 kg per story.

I seriously doubt that it was Zhou, who was responsible for these exaggerations as they appeared in all four of Bazant's papers on the WTC where he was the only common author.

 

[DGM]

The North Tower upper section mass figures of 58 x 10e6 kg in the Bazant and Zhou paper and the 54 x 10e6 kg in the later Bazant papers were wrong.

It's telling how you seem to be the only one here that needs the Bazant papers. Why is that?