Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[BigAl]

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

Since these these professionals don't speak in public we don't know why 348 of these 350 believe what they believe. None of them are eyewitnesses or have published anything about the WTC collapse. Maybe they have been fed incorrect information and becuase of that, their conclusions are wrong.

The other two are Richard Gage and the guy that gives Gage's presentation. That presentation is non-technical and makes provably false statements about what happened on 9/11 and makes claims that make no sense to any engineer I can speak with, and that's a lot of engineers.

None of the people at AE911 have exposed themselves to questions from knowledgeable engineers.

Nobody in AE911 will elaborate on their claims in terms that make sense to to someone with a bunch of university physics. Someone like me.

The engineers I can speak to can explain in terms of physics that I can understand why the AE911 claims are silly.

Maybe that's why the "Truth Movement" is tiny and shrinking.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

We don't ignore their opinion. We study the evidence they present as the basis for their opinion, and find it to be not only invalid but, in some cases, quite clearly based on deliberately misrepresented information. The appeal to authority does not overrule content, and in AE911T's case the content is clearly and obviously wrong.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

We don't ignore their opinion. We study the evidence they present as the basis for their opinion, and find it to be not only invalid but, in some cases, quite clearly based on deliberately misrepresented information.

Nothing wrong with that, so why don't you apply the same standard to NIST?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

We don't ignore their opinion. We study the evidence they present as the basis for their opinion, and find it to be not only invalid but, in some cases, quite clearly based on deliberately misrepresented information. The appeal to authority does not overrule content, and in AE911T's case the content is clearly and obviously wrong.

Dave

Seconded, and QFT. It is not even a strawman to assert that people here are "ignoring" their opinion. On the contrary, what's happening is that you are presenting versions of their arguments, and we're showing you what's wrong with them. That is the complete and total opposite of what you're trying to say. Your own participation in this thread exposes you to what people like R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, Newton's Bit, etc. are doing, so I'm at a loss as to how you could even make the claim that somehow everyone's ignoring their opinion. The evidence is right in front of you that we're not.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

That's not even a good objection. Newtons Bit laid out the criteria for what a progressive collapse is. Your response is basically a non sequitor. Regardless of how fast or slow components fail, a progressive collapse is defined by qualitative criteria, not the rate at which it occurs.

The thread you linked to is not related to the collapse of WTC7.

Of course it's not! It's about general principles! He's talking about load redistribution, and that can apply to everything from Ronan Point to Kader Toy Factory, to WTC 7.

The fact that you fail to recognize this is proof positive that what you seek to do is negate, not learn.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

Word salad is not a response. First of all, the connections between the floor trusses and the core beams in the Twin Towers do not have to be strong enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core. On the contrary, when those connections between the trusses and the core columns sever, the core columns cannot stand on their own at all. They're too slender in relation to their length to do so. The thing that holds them up - the floors - are gone, so all they can do is collapse.

You really don't know the basic mechanics of any of the WTC collapses, do you?

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

Probably not, but Bazant, Zhou, and others worked out the energy totals in the whole system and discovered that regardless of how you describe the collapse, once it got started there was more than enough energy to keep it going. Or in short, there was more than enough energy to fail all the connections, regardless of whether the failure modes were shear, buckling, or whatnot.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

His point is that the very description you provide is consistent with a progressive collapse that wasn't induced by explosives or any other sort of intentional demolition. So what you'd have to do to further determine the collapse mechanism is study the evidence. And the fact of the matter is, there is zero evidence of intentional demolition of the structure.

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

That's true. Problem is, you deny the perpetrators of 9/11 and attempt to substitute the government in their place. So you start from a false premise.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nothing wrong with that, so why don't you apply the same standard to NIST?

Show me the information NIST have deliberately misrepresented, and I'll happily do so. Alternatively, I can amuse myself by seeing how radically your personal definition of misrepresentation differs from a dictionary definition.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Oh twoofie.

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

I fully respect professionals. Having taken 3 years of engineering classes before changing my major, I have the utmost respect for engineers and architects.

I just despise peple who lie and then have to shift shift shift their statements to try to inflate their numbers.

Why do people who claim to be after the "truth" lie to inflate their numbers? First they were claiming they had 600 licensed AND degreed engineers and architects... then that was checked and no... (at the time) it was under 250. So then they changed it to degreed OR licensed engineers and architects, and they lied and said they had 700 (when they had under 500), and now they have shift shift shifted it to architecture and engineering professionals and they (and YOU JUST) claimed they have nearly 1,000. That is BS and a ploy to shift and try to INFLATE your numbers.

Why do you have to mislead people? They have less than 350 degreed AND licensed architects and engineers.

Now if we examine those they do have, they have less than 20 degreed and licensed engineers or architects who have high rise experience. Do you really want to try to quibble on the numbers?

I mean we have people like (your pal who you try to quote) Heiwa who says that if you dropped the top of the towers 2 miles high it wouldn't collapse. Really? Is that one of your "engineers" you really want cheerleading for you?

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

GREAT. PROVE IT. Provide your math to show your claims. I eagerly await your thesis.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

Ah... truther misstatements and strawmen. You might want to look up what that highlited portion means... It doesn't mean what you think it does. And it didn't happen. Nothing was "hurled" hundreds of feet. It fell out during the collapse due to the very chaotic collapse mechanisms.

So now you try to the explosives were used to "hurl columns for hundreds of feet" cannard. GREAT. Then provide the proof that explosives were used. The amount of explosive necessary to "hurl columns for hundreds of feet" would be very noticable during the collapse. Provide a video where you can hear this distinctive noises during the collapse. It should be EASY.

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

Argument from ignorance noted. Why don't you do the math instead of begging everyone here to spoon feed you?

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

You are the one stating that NIST is wrong and full of crap. You even tried to point to 972 of them (which is in fact a bold faced lie). Yet not one of them can generate a single peer reviewed professional paper in any engineering or architectural journal anywhere in the world. Why is that?

If it is soooo easy that scooby and the gang (can't forget those manchester folks either, and college drop outs, army deserters, pizza delivery boys, fired professors and a theologian) can figure it out, you should have dozens of (if not HUNDREDS of) peer reviewed journals stating they are full of crap. Please provide just one. I'd love to read it.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

Yes we can. If you play video of CD, then you will see tell tale reactions of CD. Especially if you have sound in the videos. Then you will HEAR the explosions necessary.

Or if it is the Verinage technique (which you say you don't believe in), then you would have Tony S's "missing Jolt."

or course if you had suicide ninjaneers run in and cut the columns and not care if they lived then no... is that your new claim?

Science is for the crime lab. Motive is for the detectives.

and you have neither on your side.

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

You are extremely right in this statement. 19 fundamentalist terrorists wanted to change the world and strike at the "big satan." And guess what, they did. In fact, they did it beautifully.

The convoluted twisted conspiracy necessary that employs thousands without anyone speaking from several countries is what is hillarious.

It's the kind of collapse demolition teams dream of.

argument from ignorance noted.

I'd like to see a graph of this progressive collapse showing observable failures at the roof level plotted against time, then compare it to a similar graph of the WTC7 collapse. I suspect the former would be a straightish diagonal line, whereas the latter would rise briefly, remain flat for most of the graph, then hit a brick wall near the end.

Ah.. now you are trying to go to david chandlers "work?" Really?

I still want to see your video where you can see all 4 corners of wtc7 during the collapse. Still waiting to see that video. I'm sure if you have it, it would help the analysis of the collapse immensely.

and again, how does a building which (according to you) collapses symmetrically and uniformly manage to strike the building across the street at the ROOF?

 

[Newtons Bit]

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

Now your shifting the goal-post. You asked for someone with relevant experience and qualifications to answer you question. I'm an engineer who makes a living designing the structural systems of buildings. I gave you a text-book response to the definition of a progressive collapse.

You've now moved on to the "it can't collapse that fast" idiocy. This is an argument from incredulity. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand. If you would like to continue with that particular long debunked meme, then I ask you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Myriad]

Possibly useful essay on the nature of progressive failures, here. Includes an explanation of why progressive failures never happen rapdily in the movies, but often do in real life.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[dafydd]

Still refusing to answer my question bardamu? What happened on 9/11?

 

[TruthersLie]

Nothing wrong with that, so why don't you apply the same standard to NIST?

Red still waiting for you to come and provide a citation from any kind of engineering or architectural journal stating that the TVCC building in Beijing was steel framed.

Why do you run like a little girl when you have nothing instead of stating that you made a mistake?

 

[RedIbis]

Show me the information NIST have deliberately misrepresented, and I'll happily do so. Alternatively, I can amuse myself by seeing how radically your personal definition of misrepresentation differs from a dictionary definition.

Dave

Ok, let's start with the fuel loads on Floor 13 of WTC 7.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ok, let's start with the fuel loads on Floor 13 of WTC 7.

That's a non-answer. If you have a case to present, please present it. What, specifically, did NIST say; what, specifically, was the truth; and how, specifically, did NIST's statement misrepresent the truth?

Dave

 

[BigAl]

Ok, let's start with the fuel loads on Floor 13 of WTC 7.

Why don't you spend time looking at the failure of the sprinklers and the lack of water for firefighting and the hour rating that all fireproofing has?

 

[newton3376]

Since these these professionals don't speak in public we don't know why 348 of these 350 believe what they believe. None of them are eyewitnesses or have published anything about the WTC collapse. Maybe they have been fed incorrect information and becuase of that, their conclusions are wrong.

The other two are Richard Gage and the guy that gives Gage's presentation. That presentation is non-technical and makes provably false statements about what happened on 9/11 and makes claims that make no sense to any engineer I can speak with, and that's a lot of engineers.

None of the people at AE911 have exposed themselves to questions from knowledgeable engineers.

Nobody in AE911 will elaborate on their claims in terms that make sense to to someone with a bunch of university physics. Someone like me.

The engineers I can speak to can explain in terms of physics that I can understand why the AE911 claims are silly.

Maybe that's why the "Truth Movement" is tiny and shrinking.

This is a point that deserves repeating....

Since 9/11 I have not met ONE fellow engineer or scientist who thinks there is any validity to the truthers claims....not one person in 8 years.

 

[AZCat]

This is a point that deserves repeating....

Since 9/11 I have not met ONE fellow engineer or scientist who thinks there is any validity to the truthers claims....not one person in 8 years.

Unfortunately I can't say that. There are three mechanical engineers I have worked with in the past few years who either wholeheartedly support the claims of organizations like AE911Truth or at least think their arguments have merit.

 

[DavidJames]

Unfortunately I can't say that. There are three mechanical engineers I have worked with in the past few years who either wholeheartedly support the claims of organizations like AE911Truth or at least think their arguments have merit.

Is it fair to say that no architects or engineers have produced technical documentation supporting any 9/11 CT and presented it for peer review within their respective fields of expertise?

 

[nicepants]

Loved the third show. Tony seems stuck on his idea that there must be a DECELERATION, which I suppose would be the case if it wasn't for gravity.

If his claims were true we could all go skydiving with no parachutes because the air resistance would cause a deceleration that would bring us to a stop in mid-air.

I've seen many other truthers make this same mistake...they don't appreciate the difference between a deceleration and a reduction in the rate of acceleration (the latter of which was observed in the WTC collapses).

 

[carlitos]

I've seen many other truthers make this same mistake...they don't appreciate the difference between a deceleration and a reduction in the rate of acceleration (the latter of which was observed in the WTC collapses).

That's a great point. Like when Congress is going to 'cut' the rate of increase of some program or other, and the proponents of that program call it a 'cut' in funding. No, it's just slowing the rate of increase. Why can't Tony get this?

 

[DavidJames]

That's a great point. Like when Congress is going to 'cut' the rate of increase of some program or other, and the proponents of that program call it a 'cut' in funding.

I don't want to derail, while technically I agree, but if a programs budget is tied to cost of living and the cost of living goes up while the budget doesn't, then the net result effectively is a cut and programs which relied on the expected increase may need to be cut. End of my derail.