Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

Justin39640 said:
. How they fell after initiation is irrelevant. This is something "you people" can't grasp.
Click to expand...

Might be irrelevant to you, but to many it is relevant. Specially after seeing so many "contolled demolitions" go bad it raises the question how to uncontrolled events lead to such a similar collapse in both buildings (considering airplanes hit at considerably different places).
 
Dave Rogers said:
So, we're still waiting for Java Man to get to A in his A to Z exposition of what he thinks happened on 9/11. Will it be this year, or has he got another three months' worth of whingeing about how the investigations didn't meet his personally chosen and thoroughly unreasonable standards before he actually says anything substantive?

Dave
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you we are loosing time discussing the evident. The NIST report does not cover the collapse after it initializes and is thus useless as evidence for or against events that happened after the collapse begun.

Getting back on track. The failure of agencies to stop this threat. The series of sightings of molten metal before the building fell. The molten remains found afterwards and the serious inconsistencies put forth by many debunkers here raises the question to was there more going on that the airplanes alone.
 
Java Man said:
I understand the report says that after collapse was initiated it was unstoppable, etc etc etc.

But that's like cutting out thousands of pages of the NIST report and reducing to "The buildings collapsed because the fires couldn't be stopped" and on top of that calling this "Cliffs Notes" edition complete.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance does not make it incomplete.

We (engineers) put columns in buildings to hold up the floors and the columns above which in turn hold up more floors, etc. The building will collapse when the load path changes and the floor supports a columns. Why? A truss can't carry the same load a column can. That's called engineering 101.

Research, such as that in Bazant and Zhou, had already proved it. Why would they waste money/time duplicating something that can be explained so simply?
 
Java Man said:
Might be irrelevant to you, but to many it is relevant. Specially after seeing so many "contolled demolitions" go bad it raises the question how to uncontrolled events lead to such a similar collapse in both buildings (considering airplanes hit at considerably different places).
Click to expand...

You should read these.

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187


Avoiding Disproportionate Collapse of Tall Buildings
Uwe Starossek, Prof., Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm

Bazant's paper

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf


Read them, then you tell me what they say.

(hint-I already know what they say, but you won't be happy with the results. )
 
Java Man said:
Might be irrelevant to you, but to many it is relevant. Specially after seeing so many "contolled demolitions" go bad it raises the question how to uncontrolled events lead to such a similar collapse in both buildings (considering airplanes hit at considerably different places).
Click to expand...


And that question, being relevant, has been answered. When you compute the energy transfer involved, the results shape up much the same for both size upper blocks.

Just like, if two similar dams break in different places, the flood water will behave very similarly both times.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Java Man said:
Of course not, it is incomplete on its own. No help needed.
Click to expand...

Now you're just pretending that report is incomplete. Your statements on why it is incomplete have been proven false. Good job, you've created your own little reality so you don't have to admit you made a mistake.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Now you're just pretending that report is incomplete. Your statements on why it is incomplete have been proven false. Good job, you've created your own little reality so you don't have to admit you made a mistake.
Click to expand...

So if you convince me that it is complete will a report appear published by NIST (say around 2006) covering the collapse from start to end?
 
Java Man said:
Might be irrelevant to you, but to many it is relevant. Specially after seeing so many "contolled demolitions" go bad it raises the question how to uncontrolled events lead to such a similar collapse in both buildings (considering airplanes hit at considerably different places).
Click to expand...

And this is your problem; you don't understand the construction of the Twin Towers, and are ignorant of the forces involved besides.

For starters: Read Zdeněk Bažant's work. In it, he established that even in a 100% idealized condition, where the lower portion of the towers are able to exert 100% of it's designed resistence to the collapse forces, the collapse still propogates after it starts. The key is to get it started, and that's what NIST studied.

Two: Read previous posts; pay particular attention to the technical ones discussing the details of both the column to floor connections as well as the column-to-column ones. The point is this:
  • Each vertical column has no side-to-side (i.e. "lateral") bracing. They depend on the floors to hold them vertical.
  • Each floor is not designed to be weight-bearing beyond it's own load, plus a bit above that. Because of that, the floor-to-column connections are by far the weak points.
  • Due to all this, each set of 3 floors - or to be more specific, each section defined by the length of the individual vertical columns making up that floor - are dependent on the structure's integrity above it to remain intact. This holds true all the way up to the roof.
As a simplified explanation: If you take away the support above a given floor, that floor then becomes unstable. The vertical columns are unable to simply stand up straight, let alone bear any weight without kicking off to the side. The floors, because of this, lose any real capacity because the columns are now unsupported. Again, this is an oversimplification, but it gets the point across. What happens when you remove the upper support holding a column in place, then slam a load down onto the floor pan? It gives. It doesn't take much, especially since the component holding the floor in place - the floor truss to column connection - is already strained by the columns not being able to stand up straight. How much is discussed elsewhere; do a forum search. The point is that once you compromise the uppermost floor of the 3-odd "segment" defined above, you then strip away even more of the lateral support for that segment of columns. And when you reach the bottom of that segment, guess what? The columns have nothing left to keep them upright at all (and indeed, probably have already fallen away). And look what happens to the next set of floors below that: The same thing that just happened. The top floor is now unstable because the columns are. The load - now increased by the weight of those newly failed floors - hits the topmost floor, and the same sequence happens over and over again until it meets something able to stop it: The ground. That's how the tower is designed, and that's what happened.

So given the design, and given that even an idealized collapse (one where the vertical columns exert the maximum force they can against the falling upper floors) propogates all the way to the ground, you actually do not need to know what happens beyond that initiating set of failures. All you need to know is how those initial failures occurred, and everything from that point on is a consequence of that. This is precisely why there's no need to discuss the details of anything beyond collapse initiation. Doing so is nothing more than a repetitive recitation of "Floor 50 was impacted by the growing mass of debris, failed the columns, impacted floor 49..." and so on. This is known specifically because of the design of the Twin Towers. The structure was doomed to fail once the collapse began.

So given all that, why is the discussion beyond collapse initiation a necessary criteria for completeness? Once it starts, the design unfortunately lent itself to a total, global failure. NIST determined that, Arup agreed (even though they have a disagreement within the initiation causes), and so do engineering and code bodies around the world. What I need to see you establish, Java Man, is that there is need to discuss the collapse beyond the initiation. It would've progressed all the way anyway.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
So if you convince me that it is complete will a report appear published by NIST (say around 2006) covering the collapse from start to end?
Click to expand...

The NIST was tasked with finding out WHY the buildings collapsed NOT with HOW they collapsed. Please attempt to grasp this idea.
 
excaza said:
So 9/11 was CD, please begin posting your proof. You seem to already have a firm idea of what happened that day, which means you have some material that you used to reach this conclusion. I don't want questions, I don't want to hear anything about the NIST report, I don't want quotes of people hearing loud noises. I want concrete, verifiable evidence and/or calculations showing that CD was the cause of the WTC collapse.

What explosives were used, how much explosive material was required, where is the proof of explosives (residue, det cord, unexploded material, etc), where were they planted, how long did it take to prep the buildings, who prepped them, how were they prepped without anybody noticing, why there was the need to CD them in the first place, etc.

The only thing I've seen from the truther camp about this is incredulity. "The towers couldn't have collapsed like that because of airplanes!!!"

I'm more than willing to accept CD, but there has been no evidence to support it. It's been 9 years, how much longer do we have to wait?
Click to expand...

This is what you were invited to do, Java man. This was the guantlet and you picked it up.
Instead of meeting the challenge, you've done nothing but comment on what others failed to do.
Would you kindly stop evading the question and respond to the OP?
 
Last edited:
Chuck Guiteau said:
This is what you were invited to do, Java man. This was the guantlet and you picked it up.
Instead of meeting the challenge, you've done nothing but comment on what others failed to do.
Would you kindly stop evading the question and respond to the OP?
Click to expand...

The OP invites me to express my theory, but proposes a theory of its own as mine. Odd isn't it?

Will you allow me to express my theory? I mean my theory as a whole, not just the part about the building collapse. Will you?
 
Java Man said:
excaza, one of my main concerns is that a country that spends so much in defense (more than China, France, UK, Russia, Japan, Germany... etc together [aprox following 16 countries]) fails to prevent an incident like this and then fails to fully investigate it.
Click to expand...

Why do truthers always assume the U.S is immune to attack?

Was the Oklahoma bombing an inside job?

How about the attack on the U.S.S Cole?

The London subway attack?

The Columbine shootings?

Jeffery Dahmer?

If someone wants to kill in a free society, people are going to die, especially if the person doing the killing doesn't care about living himself.

If someone wanted me dead, I'd be dead, my local police dept could quadruple their budget, I'm still going to die.

We all know why the planes weren't shot down (well most of us with a brain do). They couldn't be located in time and due to budget cuts NORAD's focus was on potential attacks coming from the perimeter. What's never discussed (at least by truthers) is the extraordinary nature of these hijackings.

A normal hijacking usually consists of the perpetrator making demands and holding the plane hostage.

In the meantime the pilots are relaying information to the tower, security forces start making preparations on the ground, the process usually lasts for hours, giving authorities time to assess the situation and make decisions.

On 9/11 the hijackers actually wanted to fly the plane and were prepared to die, so the pilots were killed, transponders turned off and no one was notified anything was wrong.

Now eventually the hijackings were discovered but how are you supposed to shoot down something you can't locate, don't know is in trouble and if you do manage to find them why would you shoot them down? You have no idea these planes are about to be crashed into buildings momentarily.

How was anyone to know these sadistic cowards planned to actually fly a large passenger plane into a building and kill themselves too?

How do you negotiate when the other side is hell bent on being a martyr and won't talk?

Various government agencies should've been more co operative and proactive to possibly prevent what happened that day but truther hindsight doesn't change reality.

Evil smart men hatched a plot to kill thousands and were successful.
 
Java Man said:
...
Will you allow me to express my theory? I mean my theory as a whole, not just the part about the building collapse. Will you?
Click to expand...


Yes! Yes! Yessss!!!!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have all been waiting 9 years now for any truther to present a whole theory! Gee I never thought the day would come! :)

Get started! Spare none! Start with A1! Continue with B2! Then C3! Etc.






_____________
Footnotes:
1) Along with evidence for A
2) Along with evidence for B
3) Along with evidence for C
 
Java Man said:
So if you convince me that it is complete will a report appear published by NIST (say around 2006) covering the collapse from start to end?
Click to expand...

The part you think is missing is in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. It is cited by NIST. Are you asking them to plagiarize?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom