An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how

[Alferd_Packer]

OT

No, it is entirely pertinent to the topic that you posted. Your inability to see that only reinforces the fact that you really have no idea what I am talking about.

Your kung fu is weak.

 

[juryjone]

Heiwa,

Congratulations! You've posted a mere 13 times and already you've resorted to teh troofer mantra - "I'm just asking questions". Also, you've shown that you won't answer any pertinent questions, but just declare them "off-topic".

Well done. You'll fit in well with the other CTers here.

 

[gumboot]

And he replies!

????? Any opinions??

Um...

As for your strong interest in a topic you can't even spell...

And then he follows it up immediately with:

After the plane strike the buildings were what's called a chaotic system.

Irony, oh how sweet thou art!

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

How could I have inspected them if they sank? One was on fire for five days in port. Didn't sink. But plenty of deformations of steel structure - but no collapses!

On October 25, 1944 the Casablanca-class Escort Carrier USS St Lo (CVE-63) was deliberately hit by an aircraft, and the ensuing fires caused the ship to sink.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

And to keep it simple the structure consisted of only five structural column members - one core (subject to heat) and four outer walls (cooled by fresh air) - albeit kept together by floors. But I doubt very much that the floors sagged due to heat. Wishful thinking. I think most heat was vented away with the smoke and cooled by fresh air sucked in through all open windows.
It is a pity the core columns were not examined after the collapse.

Are you honestly an engineer? Because with the above comments I don't believe you.

The floors did sag. There are plenty of photographs in the NIST report in which they can clearly be seen sagging. I can also cite other building fires in which floors (with much larger steel components) also sagged.

The heat on the exterior columns is irrelevant, because the exterior column failure was caused mechanically, not through heat. Again, there is ample documented evidence of the exterior wall bowing inwards.

Finally, upon initial wall failure the building twisted. A twist of the building any more than a couple of inches would pull every single support column off alignment, thus meaning there was nothing holding the upper structure.

Finally, can you, or can you not appreciate how a fire in a ship and a fire in a badly damaged 110 storey skyscraper are entirely unrelated, and in no way whatsoever comparable?

If you cannot appreciate this, you are not a structural engineer.

-Gumboot

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Of course - but the structural analysis is the same.

The structural analysis of a ship is the same as for a 110 story building?

Well done. Any other gems?

 

[R.Mackey]

I am a structural engineer specialized in shipbuilding. I have inspected many ships built of steel damaged by fire and overload of various kinds. None of these ships or their structures has ever collapsed by fire. Deformed, yes.

If you claim to be a naval engineer, then perhaps you're more comfortable with the Mumbai High North oil platform disaster -- ship collision leads to fire, fire leads to complete collapse of the steel platform. Did you conveniently forget about this, or is your appeal to authority a simple bluff?

As for ordinary ships, I cannot see how the loading of a ship's superstructure is in any way analogous to the construction of the WTC Towers, possibly excepting the IJN Fuso Class battleships.

According to NIST no floors start to sag when the load redistribution occurs. NIST claims that only load redistribution on the columns - without any calculations - caused global collapse. I show that the load distribution is minimal - 6.25% of the mass above is shifted to and is carried by intact columns and that it cannot cause global collapse.

WTC2 is not a house of cards (where a very small load redistribution causes global collapse at acceleration = gravity)!

NIST, of course, says nothing of the sort. In addition to load redistribution, you have weakening from heat, and you have buckling brought on by eccentric loading, viz. the floor trusses. Calculations are legion. I heartily recommend you actually read the NIST report before criticizing it.

Welcome to the Forum.

 

[LashL]

And what particular ship was this, and under what capacity were you able to access it?

Prediction: he or she will never answer this question.

Tell you what Heiwa, since you're so much better informed and.... well, just so much more clever than those whacky guys at NIST, why don't you write a technical paper setting out your arguments (try not to put 'I think' in there too many times though) and then send it out to every Structural Engineering Journal and society in the world (email is a wonderful thing).

I assume that you also belong to a professional association, so no doubt they would be very interested in what one of their members has to say about one of the most traumatic events of the last 50 years.

You gonna do it?

Prediction: he or she will not write any such paper, will not provide evidence of his/her alleged credentials, and will not set out his/her conspiratorial views to his/her alleged professional association to seek input.

And don't forget to fill us all in on this unique expereince of yours.

Prediction: he/she will not do so.

Now, I'm off to write up my application for the million dollar challenge...

Oh, wait. No clairvoyance or supernatural or pyschic ability was required to predict a tinhatter's failure to provide any facts or evidence in support of a tinhatter's unfounded assertions... damn.

 

[stateofgrace]

I am a structural engineer specialized in shipbuilding. I have inspected many ships built of steel damaged by fire and overload of various kinds. None of these ships or their structures has ever collapsed by fire. Deformed, yes. I have some observations regarding the WTC2 collapse that may be of interest:

Really ?

Well I guess we work in the same industry. I really am an offshore engineer. I really do work on steel platforms and I really do know the dangers that comes with fires offshore. It as alrerady been pointed the dangers of fires offshore, but I guess you being a structural engineer who specialized in shipbuilding would know all about this wouldn't you ?

Ever heard of Piper Alpha ? Gee that collpased after explosions and fires also. As you know it laid down a whole host of offshore safety features, but then again I guess you know all about them don't you ?

In fact my new found friend I am actually on a ship, that you probably designed, working offshore right now, so hey I guess we have quite a bit in common don't we?You being an structural engineer will be able to tell me all about safety on this vessel won't you ?

Welcome to JREF.

 

[Heiwa]

Are you honestly an engineer? Because with the above comments I don't believe you.

The floors did sag. There are plenty of photographs in the NIST report in which they can clearly be seen sagging. I can also cite other building fires in which floors (with much larger steel components) also sagged.

The heat on the exterior columns is irrelevant, because the exterior column failure was caused mechanically, not through heat. Again, there is ample documented evidence of the exterior wall bowing inwards.

Finally, upon initial wall failure the building twisted. A twist of the building any more than a couple of inches would pull every single support column off alignment, thus meaning there was nothing holding the upper structure.

Finally, can you, or can you not appreciate how a fire in a ship and a fire in a badly damaged 110 storey skyscraper are entirely unrelated, and in no way whatsoever comparable?

If you cannot appreciate this, you are not a structural engineer.

-Gumboot

It would appear that some floors sagged on the WCT2 east wall due to the initial impact and that then no more floors sagged. And the tower was standing. There is no evidence that the floors later started to sag or became disconnected from the columns due to heat. This is just an invention of NIST without evidence.

The floor connections to the outer columns can be seen intact on the south wall around the hole, the north wall and the west wall. Most windows were broken so the heat could easily escape with the smoke.

The floor connections to the core columns are not known but the core columns were supported by floors all round except at lift trunks and stairways, but there the columns were interconnected by vertical supports, etc. so I do not believe that the floors sagged in the core.

And of course - even a sagged floor provides support as long as it is connected to the columns.

The floors, BTW, were not subject to much load! What does NIST say - 20 kgs/m² of furniture. So the floors could only sag due to its own weight and it can never pull apart the connections to the columns.

I agree that the floors on the east wall were disconnected due to the initial impact and that the east wall apparently buckled inward due to that and that then load re-distribution occurred as I (but not NIST) have explained. But it would not cause global collapse. The load on the intact columns are just increased marginally!

It is a pity that the forensic examination of the core columns was so sloppy = non-existing.

 

[Heiwa]

Really ?

Well I guess we work in the same industry. I really am an offshore engineer. I really do work on steel platforms and I really do know the dangers that comes with fires offshore. It as alrerady been pointed the dangers of fires offshore, but I guess you being a structural engineer who specialized in shipbuilding would know all about this wouldn't you ?

Ever heard of Piper Alpha ? Gee that collpased after explosions and fires also. As you know it laid down a whole host of offshore safety features, but then again I guess you know all about them don't you ?

In fact my new found friend I am actually on a ship, that you probably designed, working offshore right now, so hey I guess we have quite a bit in common don't we?You being an structural engineer will be able to tell me all about safety on this vessel won't you ?

Welcome to JREF.

You are right! I am now working in the offshore industry looking after structural maintenance of various units ... and also the initial designs where mistakes may occur, e.g. to enable people to later inspect all areas. I am quite good at spotting fractures in the structures and then to analyse them and the risks involved.

 

[Heiwa]

The structural analysis of a ship is the same as for a 110 story building?

Well done. Any other gems?

Of course the structural analysis of intact and damaged structure is the same but more complex for ships and offshore units that are subject to more complex loadings. The WCT2 structure is quite simple with vertical columns and horizontal trusses (and floors) and quite good connections between them and plenty of redundancy. WCT2 was just loaded by static gravity forces (own weight + furniture) and lateral wind forces (and maybe forces due to earth quakes?). Easy to analyse. Also the damaged structure is easy to analyse ... if you know what is damaged and how but unfortunatley no detailed forensic analysis was done.

To assume that all 600 + truss/floors connections to the columns suddenly burst due to heat (and load re-distribution?) in the damaged area is preposterous as the load on the trusses/floors was minimal and could not rip apart the connections, even if heated. But the outer walls were not particularly heated as they were cooled by the brisk breeze blowing outside.

And what was the temperature inside? It appears NYFD staff arrived to damaged floors through the core area and reported some minor, isolated fires, easy to handle.

They thus walked on the floors/trusses in the core area and observed no sagging there ... and that evidently the core columns were intact. I like that.

What disturbes me is the sudden collapse of the core. In my view it could only have been caused by controlled demolition.

 

[LashL]

Oh, look. Yet another twoofer who has made unsubstantiated claims fails to address the points raised and instead goes off on twoofer tangents.

Colour me surprised.

 

[gumboot]

It would appear that some floors sagged on the WCT2 east wall due to the initial impact and that then no more floors sagged. And the tower was standing. There is no evidence that the floors later started to sag or became disconnected from the columns due to heat. This is just an invention of NIST without evidence.

Okay, first off... the NIST collapse theory quite clearly states, and indeed relies on, NO floor trusses becoming disconnected from the columns. Had that happened, collapse could not have happened.

Secondly, the photographic evidence of floor truss sagging - which included all floors in the impact zone - was not visible immediately after the impact, and the degree of sagging increasing over time - directly proportional to the degree of bowing in the exterior columns.

The floor connections to the outer columns can be seen intact on the south wall around the hole, the north wall and the west wall. Most windows were broken so the heat could easily escape with the smoke.

The NIST collapse theory requires that the floor trusses remained attached to the exterior columns until the point of collapse initiation. The above comment makes me think you haven't actually read the NIST report at all. And the comment about heat is just stupid.

The floor connections to the core columns are not known but the core columns were supported by floors all round except at lift trunks and stairways, but there the columns were interconnected by vertical supports, etc. so I do not believe that the floors sagged in the core.

And of course - even a sagged floor provides support as long as it is connected to the columns.

I don't think you understand the significance of the sagging floors at all.

The floors, BTW, were not subject to much load! What does NIST say - 20 kgs/m² of furniture. So the floors could only sag due to its own weight and it can never pull apart the connections to the columns.

I agree that the floors on the east wall were disconnected due to the initial impact and that the east wall apparently buckled inward due to that and that then load re-distribution occurred as I (but not NIST) have explained. But it would not cause global collapse. The load on the intact columns are just increased marginally!

It is a pity that the forensic examination of the core columns was so sloppy = non-existing.

It's a pity your understanding of NIST's explanation for the collapse is so sloppy - non-existing. In the preceding two paragraphs you make countless mistakes.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

To assume that all 600 + truss/floors connections to the columns suddenly burst due to heat (and load re-distribution?) in the damaged area is preposterous as the load on the trusses/floors was minimal and could not rip apart the connections, even if heated. But the outer walls were not particularly heated as they were cooled by the brisk breeze blowing outside.

You don't know anything about fires do you?

If you take a small fire and blow on it does the fire get hotter or colder?

As for the 600 connections? As you should know, had you read the NIST report, these connections did not fail. Try again.

And what was the temperature inside? It appears NYFD staff arrived to damaged floors through the core area and reported some minor, isolated fires, easy to handle.

Hah. Look, a CTer regurgitating the same old BS again.

They thus walked on the floors/trusses in the core area and observed no sagging there ... and that evidently the core columns were intact. I like that.

On the 78th floor in WTC2. Which was the closest any FDNY personnel got to the impact zone. The fires on the 78th floor of WTC2, according to NIST, were pretty minor. This probably had something to do with it being the lowest impact floor, being a Sky Lobby (no office furniture to burn) not being doused in jet fuel (only the end of the port wing of UA175 hit the 78th floor, and the tip of the wings have no fuel in them), a the fact that heat travels upwards.

What disturbes me is the sudden collapse of the core. In my view it could only have been caused by controlled demolition.

You mean the sudden collapse that occurred after the rest of the building had collapsed? you mean that "sudden" collapse of the core?

-Gumboot

 

[uk_dave]

Okay, first off... the NIST collapse theory quite clearly states, and indeed relies on, NO floor trusses becoming disconnected from the columns. Had that happened, collapse could not have happened.

Can we really say this with certainty?

The floor trusses played a pivotal role in the stability of the towers. Had a floor assembly let go of the external columns and crashed down on to the floor below, overloading that which in turn failed at the connections with the columns, then we could have seen a progressive collapse down to the ground.

It would be the continuing vertical loading on the now unrestrained columns which would cause them to move out of upright and ultimately come apart as gravity pulled them downwards.

ETA: Rather as breifly witnessed with the remains of the unrestrained core columns at the end of the main collapse

 

[stateofgrace]

You are right! I am now working in the offshore industry looking after structural maintenance of various units ... and also the initial designs where mistakes may occur, e.g. to enable people to later inspect all areas. I am quite good at spotting fractures in the structures and then to analyse them and the risks involved.

Is that a fact ?

yet you labour under the impression that offshore installations do not collapse due to fire. See this is the issue I have with you, you claim to be a structural engineer who is all clued in about structural failures offshore yet you have not learnt a thing from the collapse of the WTCs.

I like to think that when some guy is making safety recommendations offshore that directly effect me and my colleges, that they actually understand what they are talking about. I like to think that they know and understand that steel structures do collapse when there is enough heat, oxygen and fuel. I think to think that they fully understand that the single biggest danger offshore is fire and that they don't dismiss it as a nuisance that mearly warps structures.

I also like to think that a structural engineer who is responsible for the maintained of offshore structures, which is actually not what you claimed first, you claimed you were a structural engineer who worked on ship design knows what he is about. So which offshore structures are you actually responsible for? I am curious as to exactly what you do offshore and exactly what your position is. hey maybe we could hook and talk about various offshore projects we have worked on , Thunderhorse maybe ? How about Spiderman ? I take you have been out here a while to hold such a prestigious position, after somebody who is responsible for the structural integrity of offshore installations is hardy a novice are they ?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Heiwa, The grass grows green around your feet

(i.e. you are a lying sack of biosolids.)

You lie so much, you have to get someone else to call your dog for you.

 

[gumboot]

Can we really say this with certainty?

The floor trusses played a pivotal role in the stability of the towers. Had a floor assembly let go of the external columns and crashed down on to the floor below, overloading that which in turn failed at the connections with the columns, then we could have seen a progressive collapse down to the ground.

It would be the continuing vertical loading on the now unrestrained columns which would cause them to move out of upright and ultimately come apart as gravity pulled them downwards.

ETA: Rather as breifly witnessed with the remains of the unrestrained core columns at the end of the main collapse

Sorry, yeah... it couldn't have happened the way it did. Which is a bit redundant I suppose.

Although I think, had a single floor truss broken away, there's probably a feasible chance the lower trusses would have arrested it. Bear in mind people trapped in the building made numerous reports of upper floors collapsing and partially collapsing well before the exterior columns failed.

So it seems at least reasonable to me that a floor truss failure alone would not have progressed very far.

And as our new friend points out, in a floor truss failure scenario it's unlikely the entire thing would drop away at once, as it was made up of sections. More likely sections would break away on their own, and just collapse onto the floor below.

-Gumboot

 

[Heiwa]

Is that a fact ?

yet you labour under the impression that offshore installations do not collapse due to fire. See this is the issue I have with you, you claim to be a structural engineer who is all clued in about structural failures offshore yet you have not learnt a thing from the collapse of the WTCs.

I like to think that when some guy is making safety recommendations offshore that directly effect me and my colleges, that they actually understand what they are talking about. I like to think that they know and understand that steel structures do collapse when there is enough heat, oxygen and fuel. I think to think that they fully understand that the single biggest danger offshore is fire and that they don't dismiss it as a nuisance that mearly warps structures.

I also like to think that a structural engineer who is responsible for the maintained of offshore structures, which is actually not what you claimed first, you claimed you were a structural engineer who worked on ship design knows what he is about. So which offshore structures are you actually responsible for? I am curious as to exactly what you do offshore and exactly what your position is. hey maybe we could hook and talk about various offshore projects we have worked on , Thunderhorse maybe ? How about Spiderman ? I take you have been out here a while to hold such a prestigious position, after somebody who is responsible for the structural integrity of offshore installations is hardy a novice are they ?

"The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about the paranormal and supernatural ideas that are so widespread in our society today."

Offshore structures are generally welded together at very high temperatures/melting the adajcent parts under very controlled conditions and will not collapse due to fire or heat from a fire. Reason is that the welded connections will not be ripped apart due to fire. Structural parts, eg trusses or colums, between welded connections may deform due to fire/heat and loads on top but deformation will just lead to new equilibriums - never sudden collapse. Same for WTC2 albeit some connections were not welded but bolted or rivetted together. Some connections between floors/columns were aparently damaged after the initial explosion in WTC2 but afterwards heat could never have dislodged the floors/trusses from the columns. Everything would be kept together - albeit deformed or sagged - preventing sudden collapse. Strutural collapse is not a risk when fires occur and that is why no steel scyscraper or offshore installation for that matter has ever totally collapsed due fire/heat. Except WTC1,2 and 7.

That WTC2 collapsed due to - small - re-distribution of loads is thus a paranormal and supernatural idea ... that we try to discuss. Unfortunately many participants get upset and make personal attacks on the messenger, totally OT. Lack of critical thinking? Or blinded by 1000's of pages of NIST reports about the original design, the fires ranging, etc. and only 1/2 page that I quoted in my first message that due some local deformation of an eastern wall and load re-distribution (cause), global collapse of the complete building ensues (effect).
And no forensic evidence to back up this illogical and supernatural cause/effect allegation!
I understand that millions of Americans are wondering about it.