Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[triforcharity]

You better explain that to Al, because he was so sure that there was "no evidence" and "no eyewitness reports" of any kind of explosive event in the basement, or any sound whatsoever of explosions.

No, he said there is no evidence for EXPLOSIVES. NOT explosions. We have no doubt that there was an explosion. When the impact of about 10,000 gallons of Jet fuel, followed by the huge fireball, yes, there was an explosion.

 

[BigAl]

Not here he wasn't.

That was the claim of explosions "10 seconds" prior to the impact of a plane.

There were no explosions of any sort before the planes hit the towers.

 

[ergo]

you better explain that to Al, because he was so sure that there was "no evidence" and "no eyewitness reports" of any kind of explosive blast barotrauma injury event in the basement, or any sound whatsoever of explosions.

ftfy

Revision accepted. For now.

 

[ergo]

There were no explosions of any sort before the planes hit the towers.

I'm not sure this is true, and it certainly wasn't true for WTC7 (where no planes hit) as Barry Jennings' account confirms.

 

[BigAl]

Oh, so he knew there were explosions, just not explosives. I see.

* cough * More "debunker" wriggling. * cough*

What kind of eyewitness account would you expect to hear if explosives were used? What they saw? What they heard? What kind of impact from it they experienced?

Blast injuries are different from burns due to gas vapor explosions. There were lots of burn injuries. there were no blast injuries.

 

[ergo]

And while you are at it, show us those eyewitnesses that describe the bomb like the 1993 bombing.

It's in the link I provided, as I already told Disbelief.

GO!

 

[triforcharity]

I don't. Just that there were numerous accounts. Both from inside and outside, by the way. Others on the outside felt a "rumble" in the ground preceding the collapse initiation.

But I'll add, what else would crumple up a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door? Not fire, that's for sure.

A huge explosion starting 80 some floors up, traveling at a high rate of speed, compressing tons and tons of air in front of it.....From an airplane crashing into the building.

Yes, that could do it. Absolutely.

 

[BigAl]

I don't. Just that there were numerous accounts. Both from inside and outside, by the way. Others on the outside felt a "rumble" in the ground preceding the collapse initiation.

But I'll add, what else would crumple up a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door? Not fire, that's for sure.

A gas vapor explosion like one of these:

Paint store explosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2178600570591048350
News Story
http://blogs.chron.com/woodlands/archives/2006/02/fume_fire_paint.html

Backdraft explosion #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_u-eAq5QU
Backdraft explosion #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkNCqrJiXsU
Fire Dept practice mistake
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3326847714607168493

 

[ergo]

Ergo, here are your problems.

#1- Tony has been shown to be wrong time and time again about his safety factor. If he was RIGHT, he would have published this in response to Baxant et al. and if correct, Bazant would have adjusted the numbers, and re-submitted. To date, this has not been done.

Has Tony conceded that he was wrong about this? If not, where was he proven wrong "time and time again"? Thanks.

Kevin Ryan, (Aka-WaterBoy) cites a good source. But you see, this is talking about the live loads. Do you understand what that means? It has NOTHING to do with the heating of the columns. NOTHING.This also talks about the EXTERIOR columns. Not the interior, where the collapse began.

The information I posted was in response to "Architect" 's disbelief about the estimated safety factors. How many core columns were taken out in the impact?

 

[triforcharity]

Only architects who actually design skyscrapers to be built would be required to sign such secrecy agreement. That would be very few architects.

Any architect or engineer can design or build a tall building. Most do not.

What were you saying?

 

[triforcharity]

Ok, you wrote: "In other words we could increase the loads in these areas by up to 40% before yield point was reached and plastic (permanent) deformation begins. Of course this figure has lots of variables - most of the steel webs did not have such a high yield factor, some areas had DCRs well in excess of 0.83, and so on."

Are you saying that the WTC towers were designed with only a factor of 1.4 of the necessary strength to keep the towers erect?

Yes.

Now, do you understand why this 5 figure that Tony spouts is wrong?

 

[ergo]

I'm not sure of the sequence of the explosions to the start of collapse.

Then why did you claim:

Others on the outside felt a "rumble" in the ground preceding the collapse initiation.

Because this is what was reported by people on the outside. Both of these statements are true; they are not mutually exclusive. The reports of explosions from witnesses inside the buildings do not always specify whether they occurred before or after the collapses. Most reports in fact speak of multiple explosions.

 

[BigAl]

I think this is pretty insulting to what people who were actually there said about what they heard. And no, not every explosion is going to be heard by "a million people" for a "kilometre around", especially not with all the other noise that was going on.

Correct, only demolition detonation is heard for thousands of yards,[/QUOTE]

Is there tabulation of the causes of death and types of injuries? If so, where? And is there a specific reference to the "lack of barotrauma"? Also, what kinds of explosives might not produce barotrauma?

High explosives (HE), the only kind capable of demolition.

Well, there were, but you just think they have to sound like TNT explosions.


But you said that there was some tabulation of deaths and types of injuries. Can you link to this or provide the source? Thanks.[/QUOTE]


I can't find a single reference to a barotrauma injury or death at WTC on 9/11,

Explosions have the capability to cause multisystem, life-threatening injuries in single or multiple victims simultaneously. These types of events present complex triage, diagnostic, and management challenges for the health care provider. Explosions can produce classic injury patterns from blunt and penetrating mechanisms to several organ systems, but they can also result in unique injury patterns to specific organs including the lungs and the central nervous system.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/822587-overview​

Explosions and Blast injuries - A Primer for Clinicians
http://www.cdc.gov/masstrauma/preparedness/primer.pdf

Blast Injuries
http://www.rph.wa.gov.au/anaesth/downloads/Blast Injuries (Mr S. Rao).pdf


This is a good description of injuries due to blast. Unfortunately, it's PowerPoint. Not everyone can view it.
www.southbaydrc.org/users/blast.ppt

subscription required. Can someone look at it for me? http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra042083

 

[BigAl]

The fireball was not selective? Please provide evidence for this claim.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

Also, did you know that some people actually used the elevators to escape?

There were lots of elevators in the towers.

 

[T.A.M.]

why are we still arguing about explosions. EXPLOSIONS can be caused by many many thing, the least plausible of which in this scenario is EXPLOS-IVES.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

Has Tony conceded that he was wrong about this? If not, where was he proven wrong "time and time again"? Thanks.
?

No, Tony has not, even though many of the engineers and other knowledgeable people have explained where he went wrong. Even NIST say he's wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140639&highlight=safety+factor

See this thread.

 

[triforcharity]

It's in the link I provided, as I already told Disbelief.

GO!

Nobody in the post that you provided compared 1993 to 2001. Ms. Cruz says,

Really I didn't expect this bombing to occur after the first one, since I was in the first one, also. But when I heard that explosion that's the first thing I thought was; here we go again, another bomb

She thought they had been bombed again. She is describing the impact of the plane BTW.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6347880&postcount=520

Here is your post.

Can you show us who describes hearing something like they heard in 1993?

Thanks!

 

[ergo]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140639&highlight=safety+factor

See this thread.

Sorry, don't see much debunking going on here. Or even "debunking". What was the main error that Tony supposedly made? Can you summarize for us?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Anders, that's a diagram, not a scale drawing.

How's this for something more official:

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf

 

[Anders Lindman]

Anders, you need to reread my lengthy post on safety factors a lot more closely.

Look, I'm guessing that this level of detail is all completely new to you. I've taken a look at your extensive posts over on the Icke forum and I know you're taking a lot of the "alternative" stuff at face value.

Can I suggest that before you dig any further, you nip out and buy a copy of "Why Buildings Fall Down". I'm not taking the mickey - it's a fascinating read, and I think you'll learn a lot from it.

You didn't answer my question.