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

[Belz...]

OK - you order 30 tons jetfuel to heat your house and you intend to fill it in the tank in your garage.

The jetfuel arrives at 500 mph through your garage door within 0.2 seconds. Please advise how you intend to fill your tank in that time.

That made no sense, whatsoever. Please make sense.

 

[Belz...]

What's stop-motion animation?

I can say it's wonderful. Wonderful, that's what it is.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Is the guy you are debating here my guy?

 

[T.A.M.]

The NIST reports are full of nonsense. Thanks for the examples. So 30 tons of jetfuel arrives at abt 500 mph and slices through the WTC2 south wall during 0.2 seconds - nothing happens ... and then the jetfuel stops inside the tower!! Magic! Paranormal. Some scrap continues forward ... but the jetfuel stops. And then there is this magic, paranormal ball of fire.

As you gentlefolk attending JREF forum already should be aware of, I do not believe the 0.2 second video show of the plane slicing through the south wall of WTC2 is real. It is amateur Photo-shop animation (+ 10 seconds of something approaching the south wall prior that).

What does it mean?

A. That no 30 tons of jetfuel arrived/sliced through the south wall of WTC2 at 500 mph!

B. That the fire ball we see on the videos of WTC2 is not caused by subject jetfuel!!

I have to admit that I got quite depressed and unhappy when concluding B. It would have been easier to accept the magic, paranormal show and forget about it. It seems many NIST 'experts' do the same in various ways.

Any comments? But please, no insults, etc. I am quite a nice and extremely happy guy.

Well even though you, being a god of intellect, have so easily insulted a large group of distinguished PhDs in engineering, physics, etc, by calling their work nonsense, and full of "paranormal", we here will try to refrain from sinking to that level.

As well, you have also insulted the distinguished scientists at Purdue, calling their simulation "amateur". Nice happy guy, you should watch your mouth, as it does not seem to want to get in sync with your alleged disposition.

It is funny, given the expert in everything you claim to be, that you have yet to post any scientific data or calculations to prove that NIST was wrong, or PURDUE was wrong in any way (cue the standard "it defies the laws of physics" line, once again with no proof).

Come on Heiwa, with your superior training to Dr. Lew etal, with your clearly better education than the Purdue scientists, you should be able to dazzle and convert us over with your scientific posits in opposition to NISTs and Purdues. I am all ears...blow me away.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

The NIST reports are full of nonsense. Thanks for the examples. So 30 tons of jetfuel arrives at abt 500 mph and slices through the WTC2 south wall during 0.2 seconds - nothing happens ... and then the jetfuel stops inside the tower!! Magic! Paranormal. Some scrap continues forward ... but the jetfuel stops. And then there is this magic, paranormal ball of fire.

As you gentlefolk attending JREF forum already should be aware of, I do not believe the 0.2 second video show of the plane slicing through the south wall of WTC2 is real. It is amateur Photo-shop animation (+ 10 seconds of something approaching the south wall prior that).

What does it mean?

A. That no 30 tons of jetfuel arrived/sliced through the south wall of WTC2 at 500 mph!

B. That the fire ball we see on the videos of WTC2 is not caused by subject jetfuel!!

I have to admit that I got quite depressed and unhappy when concluding B. It would have been easier to accept the magic, paranormal show and forget about it. It seems many NIST 'experts' do the same in various ways.

Any comments? But please, no insults, etc. I am quite a nice and extremely happy guy.

Holy crap, I completely lost track of the no-planers here. I forgot you were one.

Goodbye.

 

[Heiwa]

Well even though you, being a god of intellect, have so easily insulted a large group of distinguished PhDs in engineering, physics, etc, by calling their work nonsense, and full of "paranormal", we here will try to refrain from sinking to that level.

As well, you have also insulted the distinguished scientists at Purdue, calling their simulation "amateur". Nice happy guy, you should watch your mouth, as it does not seem to want to get in sync with your alleged disposition.

It is funny, given the expert in everything you claim to be, that you have yet to post any scientific data or calculations to prove that NIST was wrong, or PURDUE was wrong in any way (cue the standard "it defies the laws of physics" line, once again with no proof).

Come on Heiwa, with your superior training to Dr. Lew etal, with your clearly better education than the Purdue scientists, you should be able to dazzle and convert us over with your scientific posits in opposition to NISTs and Purdues. I am all ears...blow me away.

TAM

OK - I have seen the Purdue simulation on the Internet. It does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

Re scientific data I thought I had shown several times that the floors cannot redistribute gravity load in a perimeter column to the core as suggested by NIST. So the core carries gravity load 100% independently from the perimeter. The only function of the floors are to support the columns and to transfer lateral wind loads, etc.

Actually the 360+ perimeter columns are so well interconnected by their spandrels at every floor level so they do not have to redistribute any gravity loads to the core at any time.

So when you remove 30+ perimeter columns in the south wall the gravity load of the upper south wall is redistributed to the intact columns via the spandrels. The WTC2 stands.

Same when you remove all 80+ perimeter columns on the east wall of WTC2. The gravity load on the east wall perimeter columns are redistributed to the north, west ... and what remains of the south wall. No local collapse of the perimeter walls around floor 82 should ensue. The hat trusses also help. The WTC2 should stand.

And if local collapse of all four perimeter walls at floor 82 should ensue, the core would never collapse. It would remain, because, as I have shown several times, no gravity loads can be transmitted via the floors and very little via the hat trusses. The core can never be overloaded due to local buckling of the east perimeter wall.

And the whole global collapse is unreal! Within a fraction of a second the upper part tilts 7° to the east and NIST cannot explain that.

So it is suggested that CD caused the collapse. The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

 

[CHF]

The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

Or maybe you could prove that it did. Has that idea ever crossed your mind?

You can start to talking to a demoltion pro.

 

[twinstead]

Heiwa perhaps you should answer the general questions about what qualifies you to call the people at Purdue amateurs, and basically call all the eminent engineers and physicists who worked on the NIST report idiots.

Not as bad, but par for the course for people of your ilk, you are actually implying that the couple degreed engineers on this very forum have no idea what they are talking about.

You'd think a person of your genius would actually have no problems providing complete and compelling calculations that prove your claims.

 

[twinstead]

OK - I have seen the Purdue simulation on the Internet. It does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

The Purdue simulation says the jet fuel stopped inside the building? Can you tell me where you saw that?

Where exactly do you think that huge fireball came from? Could it perhaps have been jet fuel NOT stopping in the building? Jet fuel went EVERYWHERE, outside the building in a fireball, down the elevator shafts, everywhere.

The Purdue simulation makes a lot of sense. But I'm no expert. If you think you could have done better, I'm sure those Purdue folks would love to hear from you.

 

[T.A.M.]

So it is suggested that CD caused the collapse. The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

I have seen no proof or evidence that makes the use of explosives or CD remotely likely.

So with that said, if I want to suggest to NIST that leprachauns did it, or Bigfoot did it, or High Energy Beams from Outer Space did it, should they also spend tax payer dollars and their valuable time eliminating these possibilities.

Don't answer, it is rhetorical, as of course NIST should not waste more tax payer money or their valuable time proving false, rediculous theories like leprachauns, energy beams, or Controlled Demolition.

TAM

 

[Belz...]

OK - I have seen the Purdue simulation on the Internet. It does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

Yeah, we usually don't need to explain nonsensical things that didn't happen.

Didn't you see the huge fireball ?

Re scientific data I thought I had shown several times that the floors cannot redistribute gravity load in a perimeter column to the core as suggested by NIST.

Claims are not evidence.

Actually the 360+ perimeter columns are so well interconnected by their spandrels at every floor level so they do not have to redistribute any gravity loads to the core at any time.

Evidence, please.

So when you remove 30+ perimeter columns in the south wall the gravity load of the upper south wall is redistributed to the intact columns via the spandrels. The WTC2 stands.

Yeah. Then there's the fire.

And if local collapse of all four perimeter walls at floor 82 should ensue, the core would never collapse.

And it didn't.

Why are you continuing the battle your army of strawmen ? Is it more comfortable this way ?

And the whole global collapse is unreal! Within a fraction of a second the upper part tilts 7° to the east and NIST cannot explain that.

Don't they ?

It tilts because a part of the structure fails first. Phew! That was hard.

So it is suggested that CD caused the collapse. The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

Yeah, sure. NIST should prove a negative.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa perhaps you should answer the general questions about what qualifies you to call the people at Purdue amateurs, and basically call all the eminent engineers and physicists who worked on the NIST report idiots.

Not as bad, but par for the course for people of your ilk, you are actually implying that the couple degreed engineers on this very forum have no idea what they are talking about.

You'd think a person of your genius would actually have no problems providing complete and compelling calculations that prove your claims.

?? I have not called any Purdue people amateurs. I only wondered about their simulation about jetfuel arriving at 500 mph, etc.

Same with the NIST people. I don't know if they are eminent. I only notice a lot of nonsense and errors in their report that we discuss, e.g. details (guesses) of high temperatures inside a tower and qrazy ideas that floors redistribute gravity forces. They seem wildy enthusiastic to prove something I do not believe in. I think their basic assumptions are wrong and their conclusion ... global collapse ensues.

 

[Heiwa]

It tilts because a part of the structure fails first. Phew! That was hard.



Yeah, sure. NIST should prove a negative.

If the perimeter columns fail locally and the core cannot fail, then the tower can evidently not be tilting 7° east.

Once upon a time I was a very active (and much appreciated) marine accident investigator and investigated >100 accidents. Many people then suggested one cause of accident and I, the poor accident investigator, had to prove another cause, i.e. I had to prove a negative. Example - something was broken on a ship or it had had simply sunk. The owner suggested cause bad weather and provided a lot of evidence - log book extracts and testimonies of amazingly severe weather, testimonies how perfect the broken part was before the incident, engineering studies by eminent persons that only bad weather could have caused the damage, etc., etc. After studying all this info I often concluded it was BS. The real cause was often owner negligence, bad maintenance, pure fraud, etc. So I apply this system to 9/11. Qui bono?
There are too many unexplained, magic, paranormal events around 9/11 to simply blame OBL + 19 arabs. I do not buy it. But a lot of ignorant people buy it. They believe anything. So NIST did a poor job.

 

[Heiwa]

The Purdue simulation says the jet fuel stopped inside the building? Can you tell me where you saw that?

I didn't say that. I say the Purdue simulation does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

 

[twinstead]

?? I have not called any Purdue people amateurs. I only wondered about their simulation about jetfuel arriving at 500 mph, etc.

Same with the NIST people. I don't know if they are eminent. I only notice a lot of nonsense and errors in their report that we discuss, e.g. details (guesses) of high temperatures inside a tower and qrazy ideas that floors redistribute gravity forces. They seem wildy enthusiastic to prove something I do not believe in. I think their basic assumptions are wrong and their conclusion ... global collapse ensues.

My problem is then what are your qualifications to challenge the NIST people? I'm not an expert, but the experts on this forum have a problem with your analysis. They don't agree. NIST doesn't agree. Basically the body of the world's structural engineers don't agree.

I rely on experts in this situation because I have no idea what the dynamics were that day. Why exactly should I, as a non-expert, listen to you?

 

[twinstead]

I didn't say that. I say the Purdue simulation does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

So you think that the fuel did indeed stop inside the building, but Purdue didn't mention that unusual fact?

I submit that the jet fuel DIDN'T stop inside the building, therefore it is unreasonable to suggest that Purdue should have explained it. You disagree, show me what leads you to believe it 'stopped inside the building'. For example, what then constitutes the fireball?

 

[sackett]

...The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse....

A masterful argument, skeptics. Heiseed's got you there.

The NIST should also prove that the sparrow didn't shoot Cock Robin. "With my little bow and arrow" indeed! I call for an independent investigation at once!

 

[Belz...]

If the perimeter columns fail locally and the core cannot fail, then the tower can evidently not be tilting 7° east.

I didn't say that the core was made out of Adamantium. I said ithe core itself didn't fail, not until a few seconds after the collapse, that is.

Once upon a time I was a very active (and much appreciated) marine accident investigator and investigated >100 accidents. Many people then suggested one cause of accident and I, the poor accident investigator, had to prove another cause, i.e. I had to prove a negative.

That's not what "proving a negative" means. Please know the definition of terms before you make yourself look silly.

There are too many unexplained, magic, paranormal events around 9/11 to simply blame OBL + 19 arabs.

What's unexplained ? What magic ? What paranormal ?

What's wrong with Arabs ?

I do not buy it. But a lot of ignorant people buy it. They believe anything. So NIST did a poor job.

That's a huge argument from incredulity, and your posts so far demonstrate that the set of ignorant people includes you.

I say the Purdue simulation does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

THE FUEL DIDN'T STOP INSIDE THE BUILDING. THERE IS NO NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT.

 

[twinstead]

I do not buy it. But a lot of ignorant people buy it. They believe anything. So NIST did a poor job

Wow. Are you implying that only ignorant people buy the NIST report? By extension, you are implying that anybody who buys the report is ignorant, which would be everybody from the scientists and engineers who wrote it, to the engineering professors who use it as classroom study throughout the world.

Please don't start with the CT 'figured it all out, and all the ignorant sheep missed it!' arrogance; it makes a discussion difficult. You are going to have to deal with the fact there are people as smart or smarter than you who 'buy' the NIST report.

 

[Corsair 115]

I can say it's wonderful. Wonderful, that's what it is.

It certainly ruled the roost in terms of special effects for a long time, and was definitely an art form. If a way could have been found earlier to cure the strobing issue, it might have managed an even longer stay at the top.