bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
You would, of course, be able to provide the citation in NIST of what she "walked through", right, Heiwa?
Let's see it.
RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
You would, of course, be able to provide the citation in NIST of what she "walked through", right, Heiwa?
Let's see it.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
This confirms that you area despicable liar! There are fires raging above and below her, obvious even in this 2 sec. video. And she is clearly terrified:
There are plenty of videos of the woman in the damaged wall and there is very little fire. The point is that the very strong core column #501 is just 15 metres behind her. And she was probably standing on floor 94.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
This is another lie Heiwa. The fires are raging in every video of Edna Cintron. "Truthers" like to show only a zoomed-in portion of the video to "prove" that there were no fires. It's another example of the lies and misinformation that is the lifeblood of the "truth" movement. Edna was trapped by the fires, it takes quite a bit of desperation for someone to perch precariously 1000 feet above ground as she was. She wasn't there to wave "hi mom" for the TV cameras. She was terrified, and likely knew she was only buying time for the inevitable.
The way "truthers" are using her desperate predicament is disgusting.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why don't you take your junk to a new thread?
Maybe call it the "Heiwa hallucinations and other delusions thread"
Stop derailing this thread. You have been reported.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Heiwa, if you're that certain of Edna Cintron's mental state at that precise moment, you should be applying for Randi's millions. I wanted to say something about you being a revolting, loathsome excuse for a human being, but that would be attacking the person rather than the argument; however, you should maybe consider the possibility that your above statement suggests such an appalling lack of empathy that it's unlikely to win you many allies among the sane.
Dave
Pookster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,786
Standing at the edge of a very large open hole (that she may or may not have known the cause for) with extensive damage in most directions she would have looked inside the building ... at around the 94th floor ... with smoke clearly visible to her if she looked up or down from that ledge, likely having seen dead bodies and/or body parts as she moved to that ledge ...
and you want to claim she had "no fear"?
Seriously?
I was afraid for her just seeing the images after the fact. If anything, fear of dying was the order of the day on 9/11. What makes her an exception? Her actions speak of someone wanting desperately to find a way out of that building.
Last edited:
Pookster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,786
I'd say it too, along with a few more choice words. But, I agree it would be attacking the person rather than the argument.
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
The thread is about the Bazant/Zhou analysis. I suggest the author simplify by, e.g. only applying the analysis to one column, #501, and provide some info about that. No hallucinations. Very strong column to say the least. And it cannot collapse according to any known theory. Can, e.g. be shown in appendix. I look forward to Gurich final paper.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
The stupid gets worse
On the contrary. NIST/Bazant suggest that the whole top part above dropped down on the whole structure below because all structure in the initiation zone disappeared ... or 'buckled'. And then there was global collapse. No evidence for anything, of course. 'Buckled'? What do they mean? Gurich tries to clarify the matters.
That the whole 4000 m² large and several storeys high initiation zone 'buckled'? And then disappeared? So that the top part could start to drop and release potential energy? That is really stupid. I know, most Americans believe it, but really? Can't they look at the videos?
Anyway, as suggested politely, it is easier just to look at one column, e.g. #501 in the initiation zone and see what could have happened to it using the proposed theory. Where did it disappear?
Not at all. It is called redundancy. Quite necessary in the real world. Nobody is perfect, except NIST and Bazant, of course, but their supporters seem only to be believers of various types of hope, trust and confidence in ... nothing. OT of course, Back to T. Why cannot anybody explain why core column #501 disappeared?
Well, we don't like to discuss it, but core column #501 had stepped out for coffee and a donut when the plane struck. He wasn't able to get back in time, and as a result the whole building came down.
Of course, considering the nationality of so many of NYC's coffee vendors (hint: they all seem to be named "Abdul" or "Mohammed"), there are suspicions that it was a ... dare I say it? Yes! inside job!!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Divers cut it off after the collapse. Of course they were later killed so they couldn't talk.
No, you (or whoever you might have copied the modified NIST paragraph from) did not edit the text to omit irrelevant portions. You changed the order of sentences, and you removed specific phrases to change the meaning and implications of what remained. Let's look at this again. Here is what you stated in your post:
And here is the original paragraph from the NIST report:
"The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. The aircraft severed exterior columns and floors on the north side of the tower and core columns and floor members between Floor 93 and Floor 98. The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward, the floors sagged, and the south exterior wall bowed inward. At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse.
[from a later page]: "At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads than the state after impact and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively."
As before, the blue text is the text that was removed in the process of (you claim) collecting "relevant" passages.
At one point five words are removed to completely change the apparent meaning of the statement. That is not editing for brevity, it is attempted deception. Fortunately such deception cannot succeed, because anyone can compare the modified sentences with the originals in the report. Another removed passage describes the damage from the airplane crash. If you indeed regard that damage as "irrelevant," you are very much mistaken, and obviously so. Severed exterior members, core columns, and floor members are in fact highly relevant to a structural collapse initiated at the same floors where that damage had occurred.
There is nothing vague about the term. If you didn't understand it correctly that was not NIST's fault. Their documents are technical reports for a technically proficient audience.
NIST did not suggest anything of the sort. They describe a progressive failure. Again, anyone can see what NIST actually stated outright (not suggested) by referring to the original report:
Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progessed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall was significantly unloaded (Fig 5-3), redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. ... The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8°, Table 5-2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5-8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. (NISTNCSTAR1-6D. Pg. 324)
If the relationship between the strain energy and the potential energy is indeed beyond you (and I'll take your word on it), then perhaps you should study the subject some more before pronouncing conclusions about it. Just a suggestion.
Let's suppose that, in some alternate universe, that did indeed happen. Imagine the energy absorbed as strain by buckling columns brought the upper mass to a stop, with the 99th floor pan resting against the 98th floor pan along the south wall, the north wall columns still upright, and the east wall, west wall, and core buckled to reduce their vertical span by (on average) half a story, or 6 feet (more toward the south, less toward the north).
The question is, could this structure possibly stand? I don't know for certain, but it would take real calculations in three dimensions by a real structural engineer to convince me that it could. The top would be tilted 3.3 degrees, causing the south wall columns above the break to no longer align, either in position or angle, with south wall columns below. Instead, these columns (bearing a greater share of the load than normal, because of the tilt) now bear on the 98th floor pan. Due to the tilt, all the columns above and below are now subject to lateral forces. The angle is small so these lateral forces are not large compared to the vertical ones, but the columns were not designed to withstand such lateral forces at all, and they're already buckled and so only have a small fraction of their capacity at this point. Plus, the original airplane impact damage is still there on the remaining floors, and it's still on fire.
In order for it to remain static (now that we've magically brought it to a halt), it's not enough that the average strength of the remaining members remains above the average loads on them. Instead, every single member must be able to bear the actual load it receives, individually, without buckling. If any one member is overloaded to the point of buckling, it will buckle, and we no longer have a static situation. That is to say, things will start moving again.
If that's the case, it means that actually, they couldn't have come to a stop as hypothesized in the first place.
Again, even if your figures are correct, they are meaningless, because you are comparing average loads against yield stress. That assumes the loads are balanced, equally distributed. But averages mean nothing when determining whether failure occurs. It's like saying that because the average income in the U.S. far exceeds the cost of adequate food, no one in the U.S. goes hungry. Because of the airplane impact damage, which you deliberately omitted all mention of from your NIST quote and later excused that omission as not being among the "relevant" facts, the loads were not normally or equally distributed. Failure begins if the load on even one member exceeds its capacity to withstand. At that point, for further collapse not to occur, you must show that the structure can reach a new configuration of redistributed stresses in which every member -- again, not just the average, and not just one column that you pick out, but every single individual member -- is capable of resisting the load on it without buckling. So far, you have not described such a configuration and proven it stable with real calculations of the forces acting on the individual members.
I strongly suggest you read my essay on progressive failure, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102994. I wrote it with you in mind, because you keep arguing about the impossibility of collapse based on comparing average loads with average capacities. Major Tom might also find it useful.
NIST does not suggest that any columns disappeared (obviously). They could not match specific columns to specific as-built positions, for reasons they explained, but nowhere do they state that columns were absent from the rubble pile. Nor do they describe an "impact" (other than the airplane impact) as being a necessary step in collapse initiation.
No, NIST does not assume that the upper columns hit the lower part without missing it. Greening, Bazant and Zhou assume that, for the sake of evaluating a simplified scenario as biased against collapse as possible. In reality it is impossible, after a 3.3 degree tilt, for all the columns to directly align with columns below. Instead, columns meet floors, and floors cannot resist large loads concentrated into small areas the way columns can -- which makes reaching a new statically stable configuration, once the upper mass starts moving, even more unlikely.
I hope you do not regard my correcting your errors as hostile. I sometimes pay teachers, editors and proofreaders to correct mine, and I never thought they were being hostile when doing so.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
But it does make one wonder whether Heiwa runs his business in the same..... selective manner.