I found the missing Jolt.

[NoahFence]

@tfk and Tony Szamboti - How about a restricted thread here?

Oh, that would be hilarious. Do it guys!

 

[MicahJava]

You have no way to verify your theory he is on site, you are not, lack of photograph does not mean an event does not take place.

It's like debating the existence of God at this point.

 

[MicahJava]

Goal post teleported to another Galaxy.

The official story only requires a knowledgeable person to make an educated guess, and give a chance for collapse probability, not a certainty.

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?

 

[MicahJava]

No, then. It requires someone noticing that the North Tower and the South Tower both collapsed, that WTC7 was on fire and had severe structural damage, and making a good guess from these rather obvious pieces of information.

And, of course, if they'd been wrong, you would now be arguing that the survival of WTC7 despite serious fires and structural damage proved that WTC1and WTC2 shouldn't have collapsed.

Dave

No plane hit WTC 7.

 

[NoahFence]

It's like debating the existence of God at this point.

Please be more specific. How, exactly?

 

[NoahFence]

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?

Why would it be strange? It would be strange to predict the collapse of a building that - if you kept your mouth shut - could have killed even more people had you not said anything?

Predict collapse = save lives
Keep your mouth shut = people die but at least MORON truthers would be satisfied 15 years later.

 

[GlennB]

No plane hit WTC 7.

After the 'gash' discussion I ended up assuming you were unaware of this:

(and incidentally, with most of the windows broken on the S side and the aforementioned gash, any fires would be well ventilated)

 

[Dave Rogers]

No plane hit WTC 7.

OK, imagine you're deciding whether to go into a building that's burning and has a huge gash down the front. Do you think:
(a) I just saw two bigger buildings than this collapse. I'm not going in there, and I'm not ordering my men in there, because this one looks pretty bad;
OR:
(b) This one wasn't hit by a plane, so I'm perfectly safe, because buildings only collapse when they get hit by planes and all this fire and structural damage is irrelevant?

Jesus. Truthers.

Dave

 

[ozeco41]

I think you are the one performing the mental gymnastics. Your explanation for the engineer's prediction involves both luck and a garbled timeline of the day's events. Combine that with old tired personal attacks and you have you.

OK you intend to continue evasive and dishonest nonsense.

Have fun trolling - there are plenty of troll feeders who will play your silly games..

I won't.

Let me know if you change your mind and decide to get serious.

 

[ozeco41]

Why would it be strange? It would be strange to predict the collapse of a building that - if you kept your mouth shut - could have killed even more people had you not said anything?

Predict collapse = save lives
Keep your mouth shut = people die but at least MORON truthers would be satisfied 15 years later.

Ridicule is the only response to this continued stupidity.

One small point of difference BTW - it only needs "prediction of possible collapse" - whether the prediction does or does not come true MUST be irrelevant. The decision has to be made in real time so it has - by definition - to be made before the time of the possible collapse.

And 15 years before any idiotic truther claims framed in wrongly applied 20/20 hindsight.

We can all be thankful that there were no truthers among those Commanders on 9/11.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong.

Multiple choice time again. You are a fireman, and in front of you is a building that has suffered structural damage and is on fire. You have just seen two larger buildings collapse, for causes that you don't necessarily fully understand. You are considering entering the burning building in order to fight the fire. Do you think:
(a) I wonder whether that building's going to collapse on top of me and kill me?
(b) I don't really care whether that building collapses on top of me and kills me.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?

No he had the education and knowledge to forecast a probability, that is all, no different that a weather forecaster forecasting rain at 50%, he could have been wrong he could have been right, it depended on the fires.
The fact the fires were impossible to fight, without restoring electrical power, ment the fires consumed the building just as he predicted.
That's just how a causical universe work cause A leads to outcome B, which leads to dumb ideas expressed on forums on the internet.

 

[jaydeehess]

So you admit that the official story requires someone knowing for certain if and when WTC 7 would collapse only about an hour after the North Tower collapsed? A yes or no would suffice.

No, then. It requires someone noticing that the North Tower and the South Tower both collapsed, that WTC7 was on fire and had severe structural damage, and making a good guess from these rather obvious pieces of information.

And, of course, if they'd been wrong, you would now be arguing that the survival of WTC7 despite serious fires and structural damage proved that WTC1and WTC2 shouldn't have collapsed.

Dave

No plane hit WTC 7.

What does your latest reply have to do with the post chain you are replying to?
Did a squirrel distract you?

 

[TJM]

Please provide strong evidence for fires before 12:10 PM.

Barry Jennings testimony, Breathless Account 2.0, I believe.

 

[Axxman300]

But why are there photographs that show high-pressure water hoses yet the official story is that it was impossible to get adequate water pressure?

Ffffiiiirrrrreeeee bbbbbooooaaatt....:

http://www.fireboat.org/911.php

You're supposedly firing off all of these FOIA requests but you can't Google worth a tinker's dam.

 

[Axxman300]

All three are telling vague recollections. It would definitely appear that the engineer-type person played a bigger bole in the decision to abandon WTC 7 than the story is usually remembered.

Cruthers was the Incident Commander. To be blunt - God works for HIM until the incident is resolved.

Where you fail is when you second guess the judgement of hundreds of professionals - WHO WERE STANDING IN THE SHADOW OF WTC7 - some even venturing inside - and made a call on the side of caution.

You're alleging conspiracy where normal people and professional firefighters see decisive and pragmatic judgement.

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.

 

[jaydeehess]

Cruthers was the Incident Commander. To be blunt - God works for HIM until the incident is resolved.

Where you fail is when you second guess the judgement of hundreds of professionals - WHO WERE STANDING IN THE SHADOW OF WTC7 - some even venturing inside - and made a call on the side of caution.

You're alleging conspiracy where normal people and professional firefighters see decisive and pragmatic judgement.

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.

There's a saying that goes"Prudence is the better part of valour"

 

[jaydeehess]

I should throw in that among those people working the Pile at Ground Zero before and after 7 collapsed was the NYPD Bomb Squad.

If so, then ,,,"in-on-it"!
obliviously Obviously

 

[tfk]

I don't feel like going through my old internet posts, but to this day I still try my best to debunk Pentagon stuff or other falsehoods that I come across.

Here's a post that I made in early 2008.
It took me 10 seconds (tops) to find it.

Jessep,

OK, finally someone got back to the subject, and brought up something analytical that can be examined.

For those who have neither the interest nor the background to follow the original "analysis" or this response, consider that 99+% of all structural & mechanical engineers think that Ross' analysis is garbage. By that, I do NOT mean that 99+% of S&M engineers have read Ross' analysis and found mistakes in it. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of them have never heard of Ross. (Like I hadn't until Jessep mentioned him.) I do mean that 99+% of S&M engineers know that there is nothing mysterious or inexplicable about the fall of the towers simply due to structural damage & fire. And this conclusion alone (without going into any more detail) is enough to know that they disagree - vehemently - with Ross.

But let's look at Ross' analysis.

It can be found here: http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html

The first thing to notice is that Mr. Ross does NOT discuss the initiation of the failure at any point. He is attempting to analyze why the top segment did not plop down one story and then stop, with the upper segment perched on the lower segment. In essence, "why did the collapse propagate down to the ground?"

Scroll down to "Analysis"

His analysis actually starts 3 paragraphs before this heading. And so does his first major mistake.

He says "If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres, we can calculate that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second..."

Sorry Gordon. Wrong. The building was assembled with beams that were 3 stories tall. You take out one segment of beams, then the upper section falls NOT one story, but three stories. Falling three stories means that the velocity would be 1.7 times higher and the energy (KE=1/2 m v ^2) would be 3 times higher.

Ooops, Gordon.

Next mistake.

"1/ The elastic phase shows a linear relationship between load and deflection up to the elastic limit. The load at this point is the failure load and the deflection at the elastic limit for steel is generally 0.2% of the initial length. "

Gordon is saying a bunch of things here, but they are fundamentally wrong.

The 0.2% strain limit that is typically cited for steel is NOT the strain at the yield strength load, for example. It is the RESIDUAL strain (i.e., deformation) that results when you UNLOAD the member. This has become a standard way of specifying steels that do not have a sudden “yield point” (i.e., an abrupt onset of plastic deformation).

The key point is that the elastic limit varies over a wide range for different types of steel, and is NOT a constant as Ross suggests. The elastic strain limit is easily calculated from εy = σy / E, where σy = yield strength, E = Tensile Modulus of steel & εy = strain at elastic limit. Since σy is wildly variable for different types of steels, and E is constant for virtually all steels, then εy is also wildly variable.

For the steels used in the WTC towers, the elastic strain limit varied between 0.13% (for A36, core columns) to 0.16% (for A441 outer columns) to 0.23% (for HSLA outer columns) to 0.36% (for Heat Treated Steel outer columns).

For the impacted floors, the numbers are 0.13% for the core columns & 0.16% for the A441 outer columns.

This is mechanical engineering 101. If Ross can’t get this right, then there is little hope for more complicated subjects.

The second mistake is a common one that inexperienced mechanical engineers make - thinking that you can only load members up to the elastic limit. You can load members up considerably higher than this stress. You'll simply have residual deflections (>0.2%) if/when you unload them. The actual max stress that you can put on a part is called the "ultimate strength".

Third, and much more critical, you have no idea what the “failure load” is UNTIL YOU SPECIFY the “failure mode”!! This is absolutely critical in failure analysis.

IF the failure mode is “it has to stay pretty & have no dents in it”, then “yield strength” is indeed the failure stress.
IF the failure mode is “it has to hang on & not fracture”, then ultimate strength is the failure stress.
IF the failure mode is “fatigue”, then “fatigue strength” (which is far, far lower than the “yield strength”) is the failure stress.

And VERY PERTINENT to our case:
IF the failure mode is something other than a tensile failure (e.g., a shear failure, like many bolt & weld failures), then the shear strength & shear modulus define the allowable loads.
IF the failure mode is buckling, then the failure stress will be significantly lower than σy, and dependent on the geometry of the part.
IF the failure mode is creep, then the failure stress will be only slightly higher than the design stress: about 0.4*σy

You can't come up with just ONE?

 

[DGM]

Are you referring to the recollections and deductions of firefighters, or government scientists who never considered that the fires could have come later?

Barry Jennings also reported smoke and heat early in the morning after the collapse of the north tower.

Is his report good enough for you?