Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[Architect]

No, no, no.....arthoscopic explosives take out all the joints first.......eejit!

 

[Bell]

Now imagine that the brick is replaced by a 1 ton weight, and try to estimate just how much less than freefall acceleration will be displayed by the falling ton weight.

I have seen a lot of footage on TV where a 1 ton weight was dropped onto someone, and that person survived.

 

[Non Believer]

Same old same old. Architect you in particular with all your education must surely be able to answer my two simple questions. How much weight is necessary to bring down a floor truss at the WTC? And if you and the others have such a firm understanding of all this, how many floors could have collapsed from the top of the building that the structure below would hold?

You can't have it both ways, claim there is absolute science in all of this, but not to be able to explain a bit. Yes, you and the others have constantly repeated the information on hat trusses, floor trusses etc, but you do not seem to be able to answer the simplest of specific questions.

I am a little amazed at the the brick on the head analogy. If that was a true analogy it would mean that we would drop it perhaps an inch, and that it would then drive our body into a 5 inch pancake above the ground. So why don'y you try that one again.

The idea that the public is not able to be involved in a discussion of this sort is one I hear repeatedly in this forum. As I have said before, sciences have gradations of understanding. General principles can usually be explained in a manner of minutes. Calculus may take years to master, but its basic premise is explainable within minutes. Stop hiding behind your expertise. If you have it show it. So far I still see nothing beyond my comprehension.

As to Sheffield and the rest, no I am not familiar with that. So I guess according to you, I (and the rest of the American public) should now go home and let the rest of you make fun of how ignorant we are. But I will add I am willing to listen to the principles that you feel are relavant from these studies, but do not tell me I have to go study them before an intelligent conversation can be had.

So let me say this clearly, the citizenry of a country must have enough understanding of the events that shape their lives to discuss the nature of those events with either the government or the corporations who claim to understand them. So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this informati9on to its citizenry. The more information that is kept secret, either directly or indirectly, the less a citizenry have a true democracy.

One last unimportant item. I see Bell has tried a metaphor with a one ton weight. I must give it to you that one works better. Unfortunately the bottom of the structure weighed much more than the top, so try again.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Same old same old. Architect you in particular with all your education must surely be able to answer my two simple questions. How much weight is necessary to bring down a floor truss at the WTC? And if you and the others have such a firm understanding of all this, how many floors could have collapsed from the top of the building that the structure below would hold?
...

Can you show that the load on the floor trusses did not exceed what the floor trusses could handle?

Can you show that the structure below the top 12 floors of WTC 1, and/or the structure below the top 26 floors of WTC 2 could have held?

The events of that day, and the NIST reports conclude they could not. The onus is on you to prove these conclusions wrong.

 

[Architect]

NB

You do realise that you've not made a single substantive response to any of the points I make, don't you?

How much weight is necessary to bring down a floor truss at the WTC? And if you and the others have such a firm understanding of all this, how many floors could have collapsed from the top of the building that the structure below would hold?

1. Floor collapse did not initiate failure; deformation due to truss sag led to compromise of the outer load bearing frame.

2. Frankly, I doubt if it would have held any. One thing is certain, however; when such a massive part of the building moves, then nothing is going to stop it. The structure was not designed to accommodate a dynamic load of that kind of magnitude

3. If you don't like my professional view, you go and do the calculations (Greening did). I'm not here to waste my time doing structural modelling for months just because you don't understand design loading issues.

You can't have it both ways, claim there is absolute science in all of this, but not to be able to explain a bit. Yes, you and the others have constantly repeated the information on hat trusses, floor trusses etc, but you do not seem to be able to answer the simplest of specific questions.

4. That's because the question is irrelevant to the underlying failure mechanism.

I am a little amazed at the the brick on the head analogy. If that was a true analogy it would mean that we would drop it perhaps an inch, and that it would then drive our body into a 5 inch pancake above the ground. So why don'y you try that one again.

5. Wrong. A brick might weight 2 kg or so, only a 40th of normal bodyweight. Size for size and weight for weight, it's a more relevant example that the tonne weight.

6. However that doesn't matter because it was simply an easy analogy in order that you might understand the effects of a dynamic as opposed to static load.

The idea that the public is not able to be involved in a discussion of this sort is one I hear repeatedly in this forum. As I have said before, sciences have gradations of understanding. General principles can usually be explained in a manner of minutes.

7. Really? I'm sure that you've seen ER. Do explain to me how to perform an arthroscopy and the attendant procedures. No? I didn't think so.....

Calculus may take years to master, but its basic premise is explainable within minutes. Stop hiding behind your expertise. If you have it show it. So far I still see nothing beyond my comprehension.

8. Actually, no. I can't speak for the US but generally we study Maths - including Calculus - for 5 to 6 years at UK secondary schools. Why? Because it's rather complex.

As to Sheffield and the rest, no I am not familiar with that. So I guess according to you, I (and the rest of the American public) should now go home and let the rest of you make fun of how ignorant we are. But I will add I am willing to listen to the principles that you feel are relavant from these studies, but do not tell me I have to go study them before an intelligent conversation can be had.

9. So you are bandying about structural theories and claiming to understand the basic premise, and yet you have never read these papers? You don't understand the structural issues, do you?

So let me say this clearly, the citizenry of a country must have enough understanding of the events that shape their lives to discuss the nature of those events with either the government or the corporations who claim to understand them. So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this informati9on to its citizenry. The more information that is kept secret, either directly or indirectly, the less a citizenry have a true democracy.

10. But the NIST report has explained it to the satisfaction of the trained professionals best placed to understand them.

11. Just as a matter of interest, even if the structural calculations were in the report in what way would you be qualified to understand them? Do you also need the report to explain structures for you?

One last unimportant item. I see Bell has tried a metaphor with a one ton weight. I must give it to you that one works better. Unfortunately the bottom of the structure weighed much more than the top, so try again.

12. It's nothing to with weight; see above posts.



(thumps head against keyboard)

 

[Horatius]

So let me say this clearly, the citizenry of a country must have enough understanding of the events that shape their lives to discuss the nature of those events with either the government or the corporations who claim to understand them. So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this information to its citizenry. The more information that is kept secret, either directly or indirectly, the less a citizenry have a true democracy.

I think you have that exactly backwards. It's the duty of individuals to study at least enough to understand what's going on in the world. Or would you have the government explain every issue, no matter how complicted, in baby-talk, for fear of leaving behind some citizens who have gone out of their way to not learn anything in their lives?

Have you read some of the threads here, where troothers exhibit a fundamental lack of understanding of even the simplest principles of physics, math, or any sicence? How much should we be expected to dumb it down for them?

If you want to play in the big leagues, you have to put in the time. It's just that simple.

You've asked how many floors it would take to cause a global collapse. Even if someone here gave you a simple answer*, would you accept it? If they explained in detail how they got the answer, would you understand it? Could you verify or refute it? If you can't, what's the point in providing it to you?







*Like, say, 6. A minimum of 6 floors are needed to cause a collapse. Prove me wrong!

 

[Architect]

You know if a car hits a tree, the police don't need to do a structural calculation in order to check that the shear value of the roots should have withstood the impact. Why? Because it's ruddy obvious!

Unless, of course, you're a CTer.....

 

[A W Smith]

Yes, but only after stopping at every obstruction (like a bone), so that each element begins to freefall from a standing start, which means that the body will be crushed in no less than 17 seconds. And will be inside out and upside down at the bottom of it. (c) Judy Wood.

Why of course not. The collapse of your skeleton would stop at your knees after slowing down! Then there would be this weight or ingot sitting there with Legs. well.. with your shins! And as each bone broke it would go Clunkety Clunk. Well ok just Clunk when it hit your head but slowing down to Clunkity Clunk by the time it hit your hips

 

[alexg]

I have a question for 'architect' or anyone else with pertinent info:

I am a complete layman with this issue but I have wondered when efforts are made to calculate how much falling load the lower floors could support without collapse are they taking into account the uneven distribution of the load. Say I stand up and hold my two arms straight up in the air intending to catch a heavy load - if it hits both arms at same time with even distribution I'll have a much easier time of catching it than if it lands more on one arm than the other.

 

[Architect]

It would be highly complex calculation, because (as people who look properly at the videos will realise) the collapse was not trully uniform. So do you calculate the simple verticle shear load on the joint assuming even distribution? How do you factor in the rotational movement? To what extent will the fire have already compromised the load bearing ability of joints.

In the end you make so many assumptions, that it just becomes education guesswork.........which is a waste of time, given that we know that the structure simply could never accomodate the global dynamic loads of such collapses.

All Greening does is demonstrate that a uniform collapse would result in progressive failure as seen. He doesn't really suggest that this is exactly what happened.

Does that help?

 

[alexg]

It would be highly complex calculation, because (as people who look properly at the videos will realise) the collapse was not trully uniform. So do you calculate the simple verticle shear load on the joint assuming even distribution? How do you factor in the rotational movement? To what extent will the fire have already compromised the load bearing ability of joints.

In the end you make so many assumptions, that it just becomes education guesswork.........which is a waste of time, given that we know that the structure simply could never accomodate the global dynamic loads of such collapses.

All Greening does is demonstrate that a uniform collapse would result in progressive failure as seen. He doesn't really suggest that this is exactly what happened.

Does that help?

Yes, thanks. The mind reels at the complexity of the actual event. The stubborn incredulity of the CT's, using no more than their common sense and intuition, is mind blowing.

 

[mortimer]

Non Believer,

In response to your original post, I'll ask this:

Does Canada border Mexico?

 

[Dog Town]

Yes, thanks. The mind reels at the complexity of the actual event. The stubborn incredulity of the CT's, using no more than their lack of common sense and intuition, is mind blowing.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Architect]

Some light reading for Non Believer

NB

Why don't you try reading these before troubling us again:

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/courses_frameset.html

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/completed_frameset.html

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

Now here's two which you might find of interest because they don't agree with all of the NIST findings - and (shock) they're backed up with proper arguments:


http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/886


Bedtime reading from Amazon for you:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buildings-F...f=pd_ka_1/026-1596753-1146006?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandi...ef=sr_1_4/026-1596753-1146006?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Fire-...f=sr_1_11/026-1596753-1146006?ie=UTF8&s=books

Now, that old chestnut about steel not melting or failing in normal fires:


The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed -

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at

http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example,

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very
similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire (

http://www.building.govt.nz)

Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe:

http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/pdf/wb_bsc%20prin_07_05.pdf. Note the opening comments on page 14 and then the page after page of details necessary to provide fire protection at the end. You'll see BG also do seperate systems to encase and protect steel beams.

Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm

[URL="http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm"]http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm[/URL]

Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts

On an academic front, will find this UK paper illuminating. Note that the example they use does not in fact collapse due to a normal - lets stress that - fire but does deform significantly. The summary does also flag up the need to consider the impact of fire after an explosion, I would suggest for fairly obvious reasons.

http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Others/default.htm

I can go on, but its getting too much like a day at the office. And I reckon that's enough reading material for you for some considerable time.

Do let me know when you've actually bothered to educate yourself on the subject you like to talk about.



http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Calculus may take years to master, but its basic premise is explainable within minutes.

OK, let's hear it...

Stop hiding behind your expertise. If you have it show it. So far I still see nothing beyond my comprehension.

But you show no outward signs of comprehension. Surely if you understand what Architect is saying, and "know" it to be false, you can easily show exactly where he is wrong.

 

[Horatius]

I can go on, but its getting too much like a day at the office. And I reckon that's enough reading material for you for some considerable time.

Do let me know when you've actually bothered to educate yourself on the subject you like to talk about.

There he goes, hiding behind his expertise again!


When did having expertise become a bad thing?

Seriously, any bets on what effect all that has?

 

[chippy]

Just wondering what the explanation is for Bush claiming he watched the first plane hit the North tower before entering the classroom to consider the significance of a pet goat. Was he a profit, liar, fool, or stooge?

I know nobody is talking about this anymore, but it's a well-established fact that Bush is not smart and says stupid things that probably aren't true. Thus his comment about seeing a plane hit the first tower is 99.9% likely to be another dumb thing out of his mouth and is not a conspiracy.

 

[Non Believer]

O. K. Arch-So I am supposed to respond to your questions which are not even specific to the discussion. I will admit that I like to focus on the issue at hand, and that has been global collapse. Yet you want to discuss certain areas of expertise to see about whether I am qualified to be involved in such a discussion. My position is, that if you can tie these areas of expertise directly into the discussion of global collapse then they become directly relevant. Otherwise I am not interested. Fireproofing codes come into play on the floors where the fire occurred, I am trying to discuss the undamaged floors ability to support the load above them. Besides I do not have to understand every fire code to understand the nature of the fireproofing that was at WTC.
Your insistence to layout all this elementary material over and over must be time consuming for you. I know what a truss is, I know what live and dead loads are. Many of you seem to have dead loads.
Here are my responses to your responses-

1. Floor collapse did not initiate failure; deformation due to truss sag led to compromise of the outer load bearing frame.

And the floor feel. I call floor collapse when the floor falls with gravity towards the ground, whether caused by breaking at the joints or pulling the columns down with them it is the same end effect.

2. Frankly, I doubt if it would have held any. One thing is certain, however; when such a massive part of the building moves, then nothing is going to stop it. The structure was not designed to accommodate a dynamic load of that kind of magnitude

As I have said numerous times provide some kind of documentation of this opinion. You have not denied that the exterior columns could withstand additional live loads of 2000 percent

7. Really? I'm sure that you've seen ER. Do explain to me how to perform an arthroscopy and the attendant procedures. No? I didn't think so.....

Do you understand the word gradient. Man good thing you weren't a teacher

9. So you are bandying about structural theories and claiming to understand the basic premise, and yet you have never read these papers? You don't understand the structural issues, do you?

Thats not to the point. I don't have to have read anything to understand that you are not presenting evidence. If you were presenting something that I am not able to understand then you could have this argument. So be specific in what it is that I don't understand (boy I have wrote that one how many times now) in direct relation to the question of global collapse.

8. Actually, no. I can't speak for the US but generally we study Maths - including Calculus - for 5 to 6 years at UK secondary schools. Why? Because it's rather complex.

I think this shows your lack of ability to think in conceptual terms. What was it that Liebninz and Newton were trying to capture?

10. But the NIST report has explained it to the satisfaction of the trained professionals best placed to understand them.
Says who?

11. Just as a matter of interest, even if the structural calculations were in the report in what way would you be qualified to understand them? Do you also need the report to explain structures for you?

I would be able to understand them in the same way I am able to understand the assumptions that are made in the NIST report about the conditions of initial collapse.

So in you second to last message you actually almost answered the main question. And you finally admitted just like UK Dave did that there is just too much chaos and to multi factorial to calculate. Fine. Thank you. I realize you are also saying that it is common knowledge that loads such as the live loads of the falling floors of the towers were absolutely beyond any capacity of the lower floors ability to support them. Fine also-but you need to show some proof for that one.

So that brings us back to the weight on the head analogy. My initial criticism of you analogy was that it would not leave the persons body in a 6 inch pile, not that your weight estimate was extreme (that was Bells problem. Also you said it was a quick analogy to check if I understood static load. Fine, that's fair, but then you make another reference to the analogy and now you want to drop the brick the distance of the floors in the trade center onto the persons head. Now you are getting plain just sloppy. Clearly to be an effective the objects need to be to scale. The person is considerably shorter than the bottom 93 floors of tower, so to drop it the distance of one of the floors is ridiculous. Here is a real attempt to develop a model or analogy of the event. 93 of the 110 floors are below, so that is 84 percent of the building that is below. If we use a 6 foot man as the representation of that lower part of the building then we need an object falling onto him that is 8 inches in height. We will give you the benefit of the doubt and will call 1 floor (the distance you choose of an initial drop) 1 percent of the structure. This would be a drop of about .84 of an inch (sorry I don't do metric this time of night). Anyway, a drop such as this certainly would not be noticed by most of the unusually thick craniums on this forum.. The likelihood of such a drop driving the persons body into a pile a couple of inches tall really starts to show the absurdity of your claim. Try to find me any example of of free standing material with these proportions, with this same percentage drop, that results in that material being squashed to something of one to two percent of its original height. Good Luck

 

[babazaroni]

Non Believer, you should work on formatting. That post is unreadable. It's got your comments and others mixed in. Use the quote function or quote tags.

 

[beachnut]

What?

Non Believer is posting about what? Thread was about?