The Improbable 9/11 and its followers

[Newtonian]

WHAt THE *********** HELLDOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BUILDINGS. AS A FULL FLEDGED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WORKING ON HIS PHD FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP DELUDING YOURSELF INTO THINKING THAT BUILDING A CIRCUIT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CIVIL ENGINEERING.

Relax man I`m only here to understand better my own views on things.

If I have offended you in any way I am terribly sorry.

 

[T.A.M.]

I thought I could clearly depict one of the towers heading for the street, yet
it fell right back into ranks so to speak Oh well. Off to bed.

Nice to make your acquaintance All of you

I did not now there was so many violently defending either theory,
but it would be reasonable to presume its because we don`t discuss it
that much in Norway and the attacks is rumored to have happened in the US

No, the reason you felt the "violence" of this forum and its members, is because you have come here with a VERY old "question" (the collapses never occurred before, and then one day 3 of them, therefore...), at a time when most here are sick and tired of people bringing the same crap that has been discussed and debunked here over and over ALREADY.

TAM

 

[Newtonian]

Total progressive collapse is the obvious and most likely path of destruction. It is the final state that our buildings must eventually return. And it is through over-engineering* that progressive collapse is prevented. Why is that? Because good engineers design the structure so that they don't begin collapsing in the first place. Doing more so is uneconomical. Arthur Mellen Wellington stated that, "Engineering, to define rudely but not inaptly, is the art of doing that with one dollar, which any bungler can do with two after a fashion." Good engineers take that to heart.

The engineers prior to the 50' did not have the fundamental understanding of materials that we did in later years and today. They couldn't design it to the level that we could in the 60's and so they added additional "fudge factors" to let them sleep easy at night.

Now then, do you believe Leslie Robertson (the designer of the WTC) was a good engineer or a bad engineer?




*Note: there are modern provisions that have been adopted after building failures that are reasonably economical.

Well, hard to say from my point of view. He designed it to endure a plane striking it, however it could be tons of factors making the tower not
to perform as intended and I don`t claim to understand half of them.

Tanks for the reply, very informative

 

[Newtonian]

No, the reason you felt the "violence" of this forum and its members, is because you have come here with a VERY old "question" (the collapses never occurred before, and then one day 3 of them, therefore...), at a time when most here are sick and tired of people bringing the same crap that has been discussed and debunked here over and over ALREADY.

TAM

Ah, I`m sorry for my lack of respect in not reading through the basics first.

The fault is all on my part, I will educate myself some more tomorrow to
not fall into this trap again

 

[djlunacee]

I thought I could clearly depict one of the towers heading for the street, yet
it fell right back into ranks so to speak Oh well. Off to bed.

Nice to make your acquaintance All of you

I did not now there was so many violently defending either theory,
but it would be reasonable to presume its because we don`t discuss it
that much in Norway and the attacks is rumored to have happened in the US

RUMORED? What are you implying here?

 

[SezMe]

Over the last century of building collapses there has been a clear evident tendency of buildings give way at the point of critical damage, either toppling over or just breaking apart at that localized point.

Show us an example of a building toppling over.

 

[SezMe]

OK, can you show me an example of a fuel filled missile, the size of a 767 that impacted any of the buildings in your footage at 500mph?

If he viewed the footage at 500 mph no wonder he didn't learn anything.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, hard to say from my point of view. He designed it to endure a plane striking it, however it could be tons of factors making the tower not
to perform as intended and I don`t claim to understand half of them.

Tanks for the reply, very informative

It was "designed" for a smaller plane at a much lower speed. The design energy is an order of magnitude smaller than what actually occurred. That's why it didn't perform as intended.

I'm also suspicious of the claim that it was designed for a jet impact in the first place. They must have made a number of assumptions about fire response and integrity of the fire protection that weren't accurate.

 

[beachnut]

Well, hard to say from my point of view. He designed it to endure a plane striking it, however it could be tons of factors making the tower not
to perform as intended and I don`t claim to understand half of them.

Tanks for the reply, very informative

The building was designed for an impact at 180 mph. On 911 the impacts were 7 to 11 times greater then the design kinetic energy impact done by Robertson. E=1/2mv²

 

[Sam.I.Am]

It was "designed" for a smaller plane at a much lower speed. The design energy is an order of magnitude smaller than what actually occurred. That's why it didn't perform as intended.

I'm also suspicious of the claim that it was designed for a jet impact in the first place. They must have made a number of assumptions about fire response and integrity of the fire protection that weren't accurate.

As I understand it the issue came up after the design was done and some people who were opposed to them for aesthetic reasons brought it up towards the end of the approval process. Then Leslie Robertson did some quick, back of the envelope type calculations and determined that they would remain standing (in the conditions that caused a B25 to hit the ESB in the 40's) by the largest jetliner available at the time. IIRC he said (after the collapses) that they didn't have fire modeling for that type and length of trusses and they didn't go in depth on their slide rules because they assumed that the aircraft was low on fuel, lost in a fog and flying low and slow looking for the airport.

That they remained standing after a collision with 4 times the kinetic energy expected proved that while his calculations were correct on structural damage they were way off on the fires and, again IIRC, he has stated this on one of the early History Channel/PBS type documentaries. He didn't look very happy when he said this, I think that he holds himself personally responsible for a lot of the deaths because of this.

 

[Quad4_72]

So in order to meet your requirements of comparison I would have to build my own WTC towers and fly a 767 at borderline supersonic speeds into this structure and if that would not collapse the towers... would you have accepted the very notion that this might not have been the driving force of the collapse?

Hi Newtonian. Welcome to the forums. I have read through this thread and have found that you are making a few critical errors in your analysis of the events on September 11, 2001.

I see you have been trying to find some comparisons to what occured that day, and you have tried to make a few by comparing them to other building fires and bombings in Iraq. This kind of comparison I'm afraid will not be of much use to you. The reason being because there is no other event comparable to 9/11 that has ever occured before on planet Earth. Never before has a fully fueled 767 crashed at full speed into a skyscraper before. The only comparable event office fire wise would be at the Windsor Tower. In that fire, the entire steel portion of the structure sagged and failed while the cement core remained in tact.

Another flaw you are making is using probablility as some form of proof that the buildings should not have collapsed. Just because it was unlikely to happen does not make that a form of evidence.

Now so we can continue with this discussion, I would love to see what knowledge you have of the findings of the NIST report. So I ask this one favor. Could you please, in your own words, briefly explain the findings of the NIST report? It can honestly be done in one paragraph. Thanks.

 

[Hokulele]

Over the last century of building collapses there has been a clear evident tendency of buildings give way at the point of critical damage, either toppling over or just breaking apart at that localized point. These buildings however decide to suddenly go into global collapse mode completely pulverizing the building.

Do you understand the effect of scaling on strength of materials? I am guessing "no" based on your modeling questions.

For example, how many of those buildings you mention were 110 stories tall?

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Some say that the events of the 9/11 is riddled with inconsistencies,
nothing can be further from the truth.

On 9/11 we see 3 skyscrapers with tremendously consise
behavioural characteristics within the broadest of variables.

This is what I see:

Three skyscrapers, incredibly variable damage yet
shockingly similar end results.

Before 9/11 a total global collapse at those speeds
would be so hard to predict , boarderline impossible
since there were no historical evidence to support it.

But on that day it was rule of thumb opposed to unique.

And when NIST was giving the task of explaining the collapse
I thougt this to be the easist of jobs because the variables
did not need to be even remotely specific in order to
replicate the events to ensure consistency and validity
to the hypothesis.

1. The damage to the buildings is of low or little significance,
you could fire a missile at any location of the building above the top
half and be well within the safe zone.

2. The only variabel to take in account was the fires, however
the real variable we see any real difference in is the time
this fires lasted.

Making even a computer model of these occurances could probably
be done in a week if you have the basic simulation software.

Since the only parameter to consider is the duration of the fires
and it would prove the concept.

So we have a model of the trade centers, make a hole that might look
like a plane hit it (just for show since that damage really isnt important)
and put some floors on fire , 2-3-4-5 maybe 10 for good measure.

And BAM results.

Then you replicate the results varying the number of floors on fire to hit
the sweetspot in order to match it to the time.


Since the odds of the trade centers to fall like they did 9/11 from fires would
be from a ballpark number 3 / 1 million some might lead someone to believe
this to be improbable.

Why people believe the official story to be so selfevident I often
compare it to myself still playing the lottery and I sometimes actually
believe that I would win.

Throw a bit of emotion and the nations leader firmly state
"You will play the lottery! Never tolerate outrageous mathmathicians
theories" and the world would be much easier if you follow suit.


I wonder what is taking NIST so long to replicate the collapses , oh well.

Let's take this back to the OP's op....

But I ALSO tend to stick on the empirical evidence , and when it comes to the towers and wtc7 the probability of fire causing such consistent failures never before seen is astronomically probable.

Thanks for joining the site!

Why were the collapses astronomically probable? Because of the plane impact, ensuing fires and loss of fireproofing combined with the unique design of each tower?

Grizzly responds to Newtonian's post with his following Conspiracy Theorist category...clear evidence of a confirmation bias, as demonstrated below...

Lemme just point out that this is the first time in history argument we're talking about. I call this condition FTIH'op:

As a FTIH'opper:

• 
  [*1] When something happens for the first time ever then it is impossible because it had never happened before.
  [*2] If it in any way, shape or form resembles something seen on TV as a couch potato, all the known research methods are automatically abandoned. The predetermined conclusion is FINAL
  [*3] Physical Evidence that does not support the FINAL predetermined conclusion is always assumed to be planted.
  [*4] All critics who disagree in any way, shape, or form with said FINAL predetermined conclusions are shills, sheeple, government planted psy-ops using chemtrails, or ignorant.
• ....

Okay I had my fun... I'm beyond bored by this first time in history. Newtonian, have you once considered looking up why steel is fireproofed in highrise buildings despite the safety record? Somehow I doubt you have, or that you will.

1) Newtonian never claims impossibility, only improbability.
2) I didn't discover a "predetermined conclusion" from Newtonian, I'm pretty sure he explicitly stated that he was open to new information. His post actually questions the research methods applied. ie. NIST
3) This is the first, in this thread, that I'm hearing of things being planted; are you suggesting something? (rhetorical question; do not respond)
4) Slip down slopes much? This guy hasn't accused anyone of being a gov't shill.....c'mon man

I would be bored too if I had pre-determined categories of people that I just mentally plopped them into....it's easy and ignorant...

I have calculated the probability that you would join this forum and make this exact post at precisely 6:52 pm today as extremely low, therefore I don't think you actually exist.

I believe Newtonian is suggesting that the nature of the collapses is similar in probability to everyone in North-America named John, all joining the forum on the same day, and all posting in the same thread at the same time.
ie. Extremely improbable...

Your tongue in cheek example fails miserably, because the probability of any one person joining JREF and posting this type of thread is extremely high; many say it themselves; "We've heard it all before!"

I'll finish with another duh-bunker's ideas concerning 9/11 probability from another thread...

Once more, with feeling...

Any supposed "inside job" with respect to the events of 9/11 isn't just unlikely, or maybe a real long shot, but could happen, hey, you never know. The reality is that such a thing, as suggested, is 100% impossible.

It doesn't get any more not possible than 100%, so why go on? What's your agenda? I'm curious.

Welcome to JREF, Newtonian, where improbable is also impossible.

I would fold a thousand paper cranes if you could get just one JREF'er to admit to the probability, however unlikely, that NIST is wrong.

 

[McHrozni]

Before 9/11 a total global collapse at those speeds
would be so hard to predict , boarderline impossible
since there were no historical evidence to support it.

(...)

I wonder what is taking NIST so long to replicate the collapses , oh well.

Care to elaborate on these two statements?

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would fold a thousand paper cranes if you could get just one JREF'er to admit to the probability, however unlikely, that NIST is wrong.

There is a non-zero probability, however unlikely, that NIST is wrong. Indeed, some other studies have suggested that their calculations overestimate the damage necessary to initiate collapse, and that the fire damage alone would have been sufficient. If someone comes up with a superior explanation - and this would exclude explanations that require physical impossibilities to be true, which rules out every form of nefarious device so far proposed by the truth movement - that explanation would supersede the NIST account.

A photograph of one thousand paper cranes, though strictly speaking off-topic, would be a truly charming addition to this thread.

Dave

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I would fold a thousand paper cranes if you could get just one JREF'er to admit to the probability, however unlikely, that NIST is wrong.

NIST claims that large fires spread over 12 to 15 floors of WTC7 were the cause of it's demise.

However, numerous firefighters report seeing larges fires on all forty-seven floors of WTC7 when it went down. Photo and video evidence corroborates this testimony, showing massive clouds of smoke boiling out of every single floor.

I submit that while the NIST staff are dedicated, trained experts at the height of their professions, they are not the word of God. It is quite possible that they are wrong and that building was on fire from lobby to penthouse.

Start folding, @#$%&.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I grant your request through gritted teeth due to your incredulous worded admission (and I only use the word 'admission' to rub it in a little 'cause we both know it means squat)

Shocking news!! Jref pronounces 9/11 conspiracy not a zero-sum probability (future headline at 911blogger).

All comments in jest of course; thanks for your replies...

 

[Brainster]

I would fold a thousand paper cranes if you could get just one JREF'er to admit to the probability, however unlikely, that NIST is wrong.

There is a possibility of NIST being wrong, which is what you imply with "however unlikely."

Start doing those cranes.

 

[BigAl]

I would fold a thousand paper cranes if you could get just one JREF'er to admit to the probability, however unlikely, that NIST is wrong.

Start folding.

There are several researchers that disagree with some aspect of the NIST conclusions. James Quintiere, Professor, Dept. of Fire Protection Engineering, Univ. of Maryland, would be one of them. Since they both can't be right, one of them is wrong.

Nobody that disagrees with NIST says that the disagreement is solved by the addition on man-made demolition.


Dr. Quintiere Thinks you are nuts.

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST.s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a
supporter of theories that the TwinTowers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. .If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the .conspiracy theories. that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to
somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it.s one of the floors falling down..

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

 

[sylvan8798]

When I look at the events from a strictly mathbased and probability calculation I have found the events to be to consise beyond probability.

Ya haven't presented any of those maths. Come on, if you've done calculations, cough them up.