Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Gravy]

No but I will. Will you answer my question about NIST?

You were responding to Kent1, but here's the link to the NIST report. http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

 

[jessicarabbit]

Wikipedia offers this -

The scope of the NIST investigation was limited to "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." In line with the concerns of most engineers, NIST focused on the airplane impacts and the spread and effects of the fires, modeling these at a very high level of detail. NIST developed several highly detailed structural models for specific sub-systems such as the floor trusses as well as a global model of the towers as a whole which is less detailed. These models are static or quasi-static, including deformation but not the motion of structural elements after rupture as would dynamic models. So, the NIST models are useful for determining how the collapse was triggered, but do not shed light on events after that point. As stated in the report, it "includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (p. xxxvii, fn2) Some engineers have suggested that our understanding of the collapse mechanism could be improved by developing an animated sequence of the collapses based on a global dynamic model, and comparing it with the video evidence of the actual collapses.[30]

Bolding mine

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Centerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-19

 

[WildCat]

So come on now use that excellent Gravy Grave Tour Guide Straw Man research to debunk Craig and Steele. Something you still have niot addressed, straw man.

Another content-free post from a 9/11 troofer.

 

[jessicarabbit]

And you're aware of a way to accurately model the progressive collapse of a 110 story building?

No but some people are

Some engineers have suggested that our understanding of the collapse mechanism could be improved by developing an animated sequence of the collapses based on a global dynamic model, and comparing it with the video evidence of the actual collapses.[30]

 

[WildCat]

Wikipedia offers this -

"Some engineers have suggested that our understanding of the collapse mechanism could be improved by developing an animated sequence of the collapses based on a global dynamic model, and comparing it with the video evidence of the actual collapses."

And the "global dynamic model" is...?

 

[jessicarabbit]

You were responding to Kent1, but here's the link to the NIST report. http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

So answer my question. Is your description of the full collapse your opinion or based on studies?

 

[Kent1]

Could you link me to that on the net? I'm not denying its true but I haven't seen it.

I don't have the web link currently Im going to be talking off soon, but I can cut and paste the section

page 319 9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation

Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The titlting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential enery released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of demformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, futher incresing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing materical, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives panted prior to Sep 11,2001. NIST also did not find any evience that missles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiaing floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

NIST also has mention of some information past initation on the NIST faq sheet.

 

[Pardalis]

I just got back fom the movies, wow, this thread has grown!

I didn't read most of the thread since I logged off but here is Usual Suspects' contribution to this thread since the last two pages:

Straw Man.

Straw Man

Straw man. Straw man

Straw man.

Jr Gravy straw man

Straw man Roberts.

Straw Man

Straw Man.

Straw man

straw men.

straw man.
pulling a straw man

straw man
straw man.
straw man.

Straw Man
straw man.

WOW! And that is just two pages.

Do you even know what "straw man" means Usual Suspect?

 

[jessicarabbit]

And the "global dynamic model" is...?

I have no idea. I will leave that to the experts who have suggested it can be done.

 

[Gravy]

So come on now use that excellent Gravy Grave Tour Guide Straw Man research to debunk Craig and Steele. Something you still have not addressed, straw man.

You've repeatedly been asked to raise an important point of Steele's for further discussion, and you've been unable to do so. You've given us zero reason to believe there is anything at all worth discussing, or that you understand the material that you linked to.

Likewise, I've repeatedly asked you who made the claims about the NYPD that your OP is based on. You had no answer. I've also repeatedly asked you how you know what Craig Bartner thinks about me or the JREF. You've had no answer.

Liars who can't form coherent arguments, backed by evidence, to advance their claims, aren't worth dealing with in any way. I've asked you again and again to present your case. You will not. I won't be wasting any more time replying to you. I hope you grow up soon.

 

[Kent1]

Wikipedia offers this -



Bolding mine

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Centerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-19

No doubt the main focus was on the initation events but clearly NIST does discuss various elements including fall times in their faq sheet.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

 

[jessicarabbit]

NIST also did not find any evience that missles were fired at or hit the towers.

Thats the biggest straw man I have ever seen and NIST built it!

 

[Pardalis]

Thats the biggest straw man I have ever seen and NIST built it!

Do *you* know what "straw man" means Jessica?

 

[jessicarabbit]

Accepts that my question is too hard for gravy...sigh

 

[Moving On]

What hits me is that with the fact that the buildings were hit at different heights and angles, had different patterns of explosions and fuel distribution, that they just looked damn identical visually.

Well except for the top of the one leaning so far out and then the rest of it underneath still falling.

It is an amazing fact that they looked identical.

 

[Gravy]

So answer my question. Is your description of the full collapse your opinion or based on studies?

What question? Whose description of the full collapse?

 

[Usual Suspect]

You've repeatedly been asked to raise an important point of Steele's for further discussion, and you've been unable to do so. You've given us zero reason to believe there is anything at all worth discussing, or that you understand the material that you linked to.

Liars who can't form coherent arguments, backed by evidence, to advance their claims, aren't worth dealing with in any way. I've asked you again and again to present your case. You will not. I won't be wasting any more time replying to you. I hope you grow up soon.

You should know Liars Mark. I gave you great Steele arguments in the 3 links that like a liar you ignore Straw Man. You have given absolutely nothing that proves "your paper" is your own but at least 3 pages of proof now that your afraid to attempt to debunk Seetle cause you can't.

 

[jessicarabbit]

Do *you* know what "straw man" means Jessica?

Its when you attribute a false position to the opposing side then proceed to refute it.

 

[WildCat]

I have no idea. I will leave that to the experts who have suggested it can be done.

Experts have also suggested that we can travel to distant stars by going through wormholes. Doesn't mean it will happen any time soon, or even if it's possible.

Meanwhile, ponder this pic, you really think something can withstand an impact like that? eta Russell, is that falling "straight down"?

 

[Usual Suspect]

Do *you* know what "straw man" means Jessica?

Let me use a Strawy quote.... "All of two seconds to search the net."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394fc1cf0ba9.htm