Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Lurker]

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.

All righty then. My father also is a Civil Engineer but his area was not structures. Have you asked your father about the WTC, factors of safety, and impact loading?

Anyway, the formula I provided shows that the force from the upper part impacting onto the lower part is a minimum of 2xWeight. Actually, it got me thinking about structures in general and if they always use factors of safety below two. If so, then every building would experience total collapse if a whole section fell into the whole section below.

My guess is that not all structures have WTC factors of safety. Why do I think this? My guess is the steel girders come in certain standard sizes and are not scaleable from one building to another. Thus, building that are not skyscrapers probably have higher factors of safety than what the WTC has. Not because engineers feel they need that high a level, but because there is no need to downsize the steel beams which would probably cost more money.

Lurker

 

[SDC]

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.

Well, you said you weren't an engineer. Why did you start from that perspective? It certainly appeared as though you were making that claim.

Lest anyone say "Gravy's not neither," that's right, and he doesn't pretend to be. He draws from the works of those who are.

That said, I hope you're going to make some interesting arguments. It's been pretty dreary around here. Ah, the stories these old keyboards could tell... Just get my drink filled, won't you, youngster?....

 

[DGM]

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.

Now that's a good one. Name one skeptic here that has said this or you think believes it. Be careful with these sweeping statements or you will find people reacting harshly to you.

 

[The Big Dog]

"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."

Understood! Now, had it been me, before I came into a thread tossing around insults like the discussion here is proceeding at a Ninth Graders level, I'd have been sure I had a good understanding of the "engineering perspective" angle, but you have a life.

Anyhow, let me know if you want me to post your suggested thread in politics, because you are at work and have a life.

 

[dbalsdon]

I think all governments, some more then others, lie to their people.

Just because they lie, doesn't mean they kill.

 

[uk_dave]

I think people lie too. Sometimes to sell a story to the gullible.

hmmmmmmmm

 

[Lurker]

Put me in agreement with dbalsdon.

I am hoping Architect or some other knowlegable person will advise me what Factors of Safety are typically used in low rise vs high rise structures and if my guess on steel sizing is correct in that regard. Just want to learn a bit.

Lurker

 

[brasil]

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.

The towers used a steel frame, not steel and concrete (unless you're including the floors, but they only had to carry their own loads). A few steel elements on mechanical floors were encased in concrete, but these wouldn't have made a difference in the collapses.

Of course, the "30 floors vs. 80 floors" argument is a non-starter. The falling top portion only has to break through one floor for the collapse to proceed, and of course the floors were built to hold the weight of themselves and their contents, not of the building above.

You'll find a good analysis of the possible column failure modes in Professor Bazant's papers. He shows that even if the severed columns above landed squarely and evenly on those below, the collapse would have proceeded due to column failure with a downward movement of the top portion of only 0.5 meters. Obviously, the columns didn't contact each other in that way. So, even using extremely conservative assumptions in favor of collapse prevention, the energy of the falling upper portions vastly exceeded the capacity of the structure below to absorb it.

Do you have any specific engineering arguments that demonstrate that the towers shouldn't have collapsed as they did? If so, you can start a thread to discuss them.

You said you signed up here to address me. Again, welcome. Which of my errors would you like to discuss?

Thanks for your welcome to the forum. I believe what lead me to this forum was a comment under the youtube videos in which you sat down and debated with the producers of "Loose Change." From there I went to your 911myths site and did some reading. I was hoping to be blown away by some very irrefutable logic, but I came away from it with more questions, and who knows, maybe some "facts" to point to that might actually be in dispute or unprovable. Since it already feels like I've been thrown into an angry pack of wolves, I'm not planning on directly addressing this topic until I have my thoughts in order and my references ready. Looking forward to it though.

 

[Zlaya]

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

There you go. 9/11 in one simple sentence.

You complain how the "Truthers" are making money off of this, when the entire war on terror is based on this lie.

Ask Giulianni how much money HE makes off of exploiting 9/11.

The double standards on this board know no boundaries.

 

[Pookster]

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.

I find it quite telling when someone interested in discussing the truth views anything as "bait". I mean, how can the truth be a "trap" if you're on the side of truth? If you don't know enough to explain something, you should just say so. There's nothing inherently wrong with being ignorant about a subject or topic.

 

[Pookster]

Reposted in case Brasil missed it ...

... 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.

 

[Pookster]

Thanks for your welcome to the forum. I believe what lead me to this forum was a comment under the youtube videos in which you sat down and debated with the producers of "Loose Change." From there I went to your 911myths site and did some reading. I was hoping to be blown away by some very irrefutable logic, but I came away from it with more questions, and who knows, maybe some "facts" to point to that might actually be in dispute or unprovable. Since it already feels like I've been thrown into an angry pack of wolves, I'm not planning on directly addressing this topic until I have my thoughts in order and my references ready. Looking forward to it though.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that the "911myths.com" website is Gravy's, if that is what you're referring to. Are you referring to it, or a different website?

 

[Norseman]

Oh Mark you are good at this.
Why would you post a description from the South Tower in an attempt to prove something that did not happen in the North Tower actually happened ?

(Unnecessary large bolded font in above font changed to normal font)

Swing Dangler wrote the above quote in response to this quote posted by Mark Roberts:

And in the south tower, an elevator mechanic reports:

Quote:
We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car. http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm

But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.

Mark posted the quote in a follow up to a post I wrote in response to Swing Dangler wrongly claiming that elevator shafts 6 and 7 could not be the source of the fire ball in the lobby. My post contained the following witness accounts:

Quote:
Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out."

Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center


And this one also from New York Times :

She walked through two sets of doors into the lobby of the north tower shortly before 9 a.m., and heard ''a whistle, the loudest sound you can possibly imagine,'' she said. She still does not know for sure what it was, but thinks it may have been the elevators plunging down their shafts. She had no idea that a jet had hit the building.

After the sound came the fireball, exploding from the elevators where jet fuel had cascaded down the shafts.

''The fire hit me and spun me around and half pushed me out the doors,'' she said. She pushed open the second set of doors, which were searing hot, and ran outside. She was aflame, in agony.

I have highlighted significant similarities in the the three witness accounts.

Swing Dangler, within science and research it is a well established principle to compare similar cases, as an intelligent person you should know this. In the case of the World Trade Center we have two completely identical buildings, less some minor details, being hit by Boeing 767's. In response to my post he posted a very similar witness account from the south tower. In his paper he has done the same thing. Both actions are completely within very well established principles of science and research. Based on these witness accounts from WTC 1, corroborated by the account from WTC 2, there is very good reason to assume that elevator cars 6 and 7 in the north tower crashed down to the bottom of their shafts(one or both). This assumption is also supported by other accounts and facts.

You made a very bold statement in the quote above, Swing Dangler, a statement that must be regarded as yet another one of your numerous false claims in this forum unless you for once can back it up with some real hard facts.

As Gravy so well said it in this post, you are a true artist.

 

[brasil]

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that the "911myths.com" website is Gravy's, if that is what you're referring to. Are you referring to it, or a different website?

911myths.com is in fact the website I was referring to. It's what I thought was pointed to by Mark in his video debate with Dylan and Justin. If that's not his site with his views, then I need to go back to square one with regards to this thread.

 

[Gravy]

Thanks for your welcome to the forum. I believe what lead me to this forum was a comment under the youtube videos in which you sat down and debated with the producers of "Loose Change." From there I went to your 911myths site and did some reading. I was hoping to be blown away by some very irrefutable logic, but I came away from it with more questions, and who knows, maybe some "facts" to point to that might actually be in dispute or unprovable. Since it already feels like I've been thrown into an angry pack of wolves, I'm not planning on directly addressing this topic until I have my thoughts in order and my references ready. Looking forward to it though.

Sounds good. By the way, the superb 911myths.com is run by Mike Williams, not by me. He posts here as "Mike W.")

To the others, I ask again that this discussion be restricted to errors I've made. It would be nice to have a positive signal-to-noise ratio here.

 

[Pookster]

911myths.com is in fact the website I was referring to. It's what I thought was pointed to by Mark in his video debate with Dylan and Justin. If that's not his site with his views, then I need to go back to square one with regards to this thread.

I think you're back to square one then. It seems like you might want to start another thread if you have specific questions for Gravy not related to the thread topic. Again, welcome to the forum. I look forward to the discussions concerning whatever questions you may have of Gravy.

 

[Pushkin]

Brasil,

as a fellow newbie round here I can certainly see why you are hesitant to stick your neck out.

I've loitered here for months reading and digesting what people post. Some of it is garbage but most funny, informed or educational. The vast majority of posters wont bite your head off if you are here to learn and discuss. But no-one will stand for the "I know you are wrong just you wait" attitude which IMHO is already in evidence in your posts.

I'd be delighted were you to prove me wrong with some informed, well researched posts.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Gravy]

Reposted in case Brasil missed it ...
(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.

The thing is, if this were true, the Ground Zero workers and their unions would be screaming it from the rooftops. I've never seen a single quote by a worker on the piles who said they were told they didn't have to wear their PPE, and the workers I've spoken with have said the opposite.

So, to those who challenge this, if you cannot produce a statement from an official body that the air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero or that the workers didn't have to wear personal protective equipment, can you produce an accusation by a single one of the 40,000+ GZ workers who says this?

 

[Pookster]

The thing is, if this were true, the Ground Zero workers and their unions would be screaming it from the rooftops. I've never seen a single quote by a worker on the piles who said they were told they didn't have to wear their PPE, and the workers I've spoken with have said the opposite.

So, to those who challenge this, if you cannot produce a statement from an official body that the air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero or that the workers didn't have to wear personal protective equipment, can you produce an accusation by a single one of the 40,000+ GZ workers who says this?

That's what I was thinking as well about the workers and their unions. I can't imagine anyone doing anything different without some kind of direct order from their superiors, foremen, etc. as well. It should be quite easy to find quotes of such.

 

[Brainache]

Maybe Brasil could tell us all how sick he became from breathing in the air in Manhattan for those weeks and months after 9/11. If the air was so toxic he must have gotten at least a bit sick, right?