Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[jhunter1163]

That's great. I guess I'm not a "truther" then. Or a "twoofer." Which is why I'm going to start my own threads that address very focused, specific issues, not broad topics where it's too easy to change the subject to "Alex Jones" and "forced RFID implants." I'm also going to ask that anyone who wants to engage me not use the terms "truther" or "twoofer" in my threads.

Go right ahead. We'll be here. However, it's only fair to advise you that "truther" and "twoofer" are two of the kinder things people who question the official account are called here.

 

[uk_dave]

Brasil, do you think you could describe for us how the wtc towers worked structurally?

Such as what functions the perimeter and core columns, and the floor trusses and the hat truss, performed?

 

[Pookster]

... AND THEN, on September 18th, the EPA issued an official press release and made a public announcement, and I quote: "EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe." ...

(emphasis added)

Welcome to the forum. I snipped much of your post because it wasn't responsive to my post. Please quote where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. I think my request is quite simple to respond to. Either there is such a quote, or there isn't. I would be willing to accept something along the lines of "the workers no longer have to use their protective breathing gear" or such. "Near the WTC" isn't going to cut it. I want "at the WTC".

Thanks.

 

[Lurker]

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

OK, let's take it to Junior level engineering, OK? The formula you are seeking is an impact formula. Here it is:

F = W +W[1+(2hk)/W]^0.5

Got it? This is the minimum force acting on the base structure as the top falls down onto it. (See Mechanical Engineering Design, 5th Edition page 109) K is the stiffness of the building below, h is the height of fall of the top to the next floor, w is the weight of the falling body.

So, you can put this in a spreadsheet and see how h effects the force. The impact load STARTS at least TWICE the weight of the body. Do you think the designers included that factor of safety in their design? Further, the factor of safety would have to have been even higher because many supports would have been severed by the crash of the plane.

Glad I could help elevate the dicussion out of the 9th grade, as you put it.

 

[Lurker]

Welcome to the forums, brasil. NIST used a safety factor for the tower column gravity loads of about 2. That was a bit of an overestimation, which is wise. The actual safety factor for the core columns was about 1.67 and for the perimeter columns it varied from about 1.22-1.44. Some columns (about 5%) were determined to have exceeded their demand-to-capacity ratios in use, but these were not determined to have played a significant role in the collapses, since the buildings could easily redistribute the loads that those columns couldn't carry.

Ah, there you have it, brasil. The factor of safety in the design was 1.67. The equivalent static force from impact is at minimum 2xWeight so a factor of safety of two would have been required.

1.67 < 2.00 thus the collapse could not be arrested once started.

 

[brasil]

Brasil, do you think you could describe for us how the wtc towers worked structurally?

Such as what functions the perimeter and core columns, and the floor trusses and the hat truss, performed?

That information can be found on your own, without my having to attempt to explain it (which would just mean looking at the information myself and trying to summarize it in layman's terms). There are better qualified sources for that than me. Bait not accepted.

 

[Pookster]

That information can be found on your own, without my having to attempt to explain it (which would just mean looking at the information myself and trying to summarize it in layman's terms). There are better qualified sources for that than me. Bait not accepted.

In regard to the Truth Movement's desire to discuss and discover the truth, there shouldn't be any need to not accept "bait". Your evasion is duly noted.

 

[brasil]

Go right ahead. We'll be here. However, it's only fair to advise you that "truther" and "twoofer" are two of the kinder things people who question the official account are called here.

You just gave me a great idea for a thread to start (if it doesn't already exist - i've been on here all of two hours, only in this thread):

"List your reasons for believing that it is in the best interests of governments to reveal the full truth to their citizens about anything."

In other words, using such concepts as game theory, or cost/benefit analysis, I would like to see people list all of the motives they can think of for a government to announce the truth in every situation.

So far, I can only think of a couple: "They were caught with their pants down" and "a federal judge ordered them to."

 

[Mooseman]

I see you love our goverment.

 

[uk_dave]

That information can be found on your own, without my having to attempt to explain it (which would just mean looking at the information myself and trying to summarize it in layman's terms). There are better qualified sources for that than me. Bait not accepted.

No, you want to be taken seriously and you want to discuss your beliefs about the collapse of the towers.

Why can't you tell me how those towers functioned structurally?

 

[brasil]

In regard to the Truth Movement's desire to discuss and discover the truth, there shouldn't be any need to not accept "bait". Your evasion is duly noted.

It's not an "evasion." It's a matter of available time and priorities. If I spend the next two hours studying and then rehashing information that's in the public domain, that you can study on your own from much more qualified sources, then I can't spend the time educating myself enough to reply to Lurker's interesting reply, and Mark/Gravy (the reason I joined the forum in the first place). I'm not here to get quizzed by you. It is "bait." I'm not qualified to give a lecture on how "the towers worked structurally" off the top of my head, only to have you rip me apart when you inevitably find errors in it.

What I'm here to do is narrow my focus to small, digestible chunks of information, such as the point Lurker made about "safety factor," a great piece of terminology which will help me understand things better.

And to Lurker: I'm not even a Junior level engineer (however my father is a civil and structural engineer with 35 years experience), but I have a very solid science background, I understand debates, and I understand reason and logic. Just those skills alone are hard to come by in forums like these.

 

[The Big Dog]

"List your reasons for believing that it is in the best interests of governments to reveal the full truth to their citizens about anything."

Oh brother.... Really? You've been here two hours, called us Ninth Graders, ignored the formula that has been presented to you that would allow you to understand the flaws in your reasoning that caused you to call us Ninth Graders in the first place, and after two hours here say "I understand reason and logic. Just those skills alone are hard to come by in forums like these," and now think it is a good idea to post a thread topic that is pregnant with assumptions and absolutes?

I agree! The politics thread is here:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6

Here is what the Politics board is: "Just what are our governments and politicians up to? Don't they use critical thinking and aren't they skeptical about the world around them?"

Good hunting, and welcome to the politics board.

 

[brasil]

I see you love our goverment.

It has nothing to do with how I feel about the government. It boils down to my own admission that "if I was the government, I would lie to the public."

I'm pretty sure history is filled with far more examples of governments lying to the people than telling the truth. This is one of the core axioms of people who question "official stories" put out by governments. It seems a lot of people here hold the fundamental belief that governments don't lie, and I'd like to have them explain what lead them to that belief.

I think it has the makings of a fantastic thread. All historical citations of governments lying v.s. governments telling the truth. No conspiracy theories required: just boring stuff like drug safety, automobile safety, toxic waste, the economy, the environment, whether "I had sex with that woman" or not, "no new taxes," etc.

 

[Zlaya]

Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?

Wait, you debunked Mineta's testimony? You debunked the fact that a plane hit the pentagon and no one did anything?

**** man, i should quit right now...

 

[uk_dave]

It has nothing to do with how I feel about the government. It boils down to my own admission that "if I was the government, I would lie to the public."

I'm pretty sure history is filled with far more examples of governments lying to the people than telling the truth.

And people lying to other people.

So, if a person sees an opportunity to make a fast buck from the gullible and the desperate by selling them a fantasy about a major, traumatic event, that's not too difficult to believe either is it?

Ever considered the possibility that you've been sold a lie?

(Yeah yeah I know you're going to throw that one right back at me, but the problem is, no one is going to sell me a story about the wtc towers collapsing through the impact damage and fires from the planes crashes.... I KNOW it can and did happen....do you KNOW different?)

 

[DavidJames]

It has nothing to do with how I feel about the government. It boils down to my own admission that "if I was the government, I would lie to the public."

I'm pretty sure history is filled with far more examples of governments lying to the people than telling the truth. This is one of the core axioms of people who question "official stories" put out by governments. It seems a lot of people here hold the fundamental belief that governments don't lie, and I'd like to have them explain what lead them to that belief.

I think it has the makings of a fantastic thread. All historical citations of governments lying v.s. governments telling the truth. No conspiracy theories required: just boring stuff like drug safety, automobile safety, toxic waste, the economy, the environment, whether "I had sex with that woman" or not, "no new taxes," etc.

I find it interesting that your first post attempts to deal with the collapse from an engineering perspective and your attempt to dismiss some comments as "simple conjecture". Then a few people bring some actual facts and forumla's and you quickly retreat from that approach. Now you want to concentrate on government lies. Another CT joker, how embarrasing for you to find out you're out of your league here.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[SDC]

Wait, you debunked Mineta's testimony? You debunked the fact that a plane hit the pentagon and no one did anything?

**** man, i should quit right now...

Thank heavens! Yes, yes, indeed. Here's your hat, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[brasil]

I find it interesting that your first post attempts to deal with the collapse from an engineering perspective and your attempt to dismiss some comments as "simple conjecture". Then a few people bring some actual facts and forumla's and you quickly retreat from that approach. Now you want to concentrate on government lies. Another CT joker, how embarrasing for you to find out you're out of your league here.

Welcome to the forum.

I have not "retreated" from anything. My post #491 is my response to you as well. I'll have to stop replying to distracting comments such as yours if I'm even going to have a chance to get back to the "engineering perspective" angle.... I'm at work, and when I'm not at work I have a life, believe it or not.

 

[Coffee]

It seems a lot of people here hold the fundamental belief that governments don't lie

That is BS.

I think it has the makings of a fantastic thread. All historical citations of governments lying v.s. governments telling the truth. No conspiracy theories required: just boring stuff like drug safety, automobile safety, toxic waste, the economy, the environment, whether "I had sex with that woman" or not, "no new taxes," etc.

That sort of discussion belongs in the politics sub forum.

 

[uk_dave]

I have not "retreated" from anything. My post #491 is my response to you as well. I'll have to stop replying to distracting comments such as yours if I'm even going to have a chance to get back to the "engineering perspective" angle.... I'm at work, and when I'm not at work I have a life, believe it or not.

Ahhhh ok...another fearless part time fighter for truth and justice. I guess the families of those killed on 9-11 will just have to wait.


Ever thought of giving up your job and stopping paying tax to the government you believe covered up the truth about 9-11?


Or maybe the IRS and Santa scares you more.......