Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[TruthersLie]

Did you read the NIST report, or did you get all your info from youtube like the rest of the truther crowd?

As we can see from another thread he doesn't understand the NIST report when he makes a claim

Nist said.... "or something like that."

That tells us all we need to know about his reading for comprehension skills.

 

[Christopher7]

Now, I have hilited the parts you seem to have missed.

How does a fire that goes out on the 12th floor, effect fires burning on adjacent floors?

It doesn't effect the fires on the other floors but without the collapse of floor 13, the cascade of collapsing floors between floor 14 and floor 5 does not begin.

 

[femr2]

You don't understand gravity,potential energy and kinetic energy.

LOL. Dodge.

Again, Would you care to explain the issues you have with my quoted post then ?

"The cracks are all widening now. Stored ? Standing relative to what ? lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show"

 

[Christopher7]

The report didn't say the thermal expansion was just before the failure of Column 79.

Yes they did.

[FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 pg 488 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][pdf pg 150][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when . . . . . . . (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. . . . . . . . When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.[/FONT]

 

[dafydd]

LOL. Dodge.

Again, Would you care to explain the issues you have with my quoted post then ?

"The cracks are all widening now. Stored ? Standing relative to what ? lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show"

You have no understanding of gravity,potential energy and kinetic energy. Which words of that sentence do you not understand? Tell me and I'll explain them to you. Where did you study physics?

 

[Christopher7]

From NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 353.

"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally.
Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b). The collapse process took time to occur in the LS-DYNA analysis, during which the temperatures had ramped up to their maximum values in the simulation."

Anyone notice the difference?

By the way, the image shows the girder pushed off its SEAT to the west, and pulled to the east at the top clip AFTER the floor beam buckles, hardly anything unexpected. There is no conflict with the NIST response dated Aug 26, 2008

This is silly for a couple reasons.

1) When the bolts had failed and the girder was pushed to the west, there was no axial restraint on the beams near column 79.

2) When the girder had been pushed off its seat, it was removed from the model.

 

[TruthersLie]

No offense intended. Like you, I bought the OCT but then I saw the implosion of WTC 7. By the time it went out of sight I knew it was CD. My first reaction was denial so I can understand the denial of others. I did not want to believe it but when I saw it again on the History Channel "America Rebuilds" I had to face the ugly reality. Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance. Fire could not make a modern steel frame skyscraper collaps the way WTC 7 did - IMnsHO. The thermal expansion hypothesis is a bunch of crap. Beams always expand in high rise fires and it has never been a problem before.
Here is an extreme example:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2411/meridian6si9.png

The NIST hypothesis is impossible and the final report is a fraud and a farce. I found several fatal misrepresentations.

1) The fire that supposedly initiated the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse.

2) They lied about there being no shear studs on the girders.

3) To get the shear studs on the beams to fail, they heated the beams but not the slab.

4) They applied 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds which does not allow for heat dissipation or sagging.

5) They have the girder failing twice. First it was pushed off its seat to the east and then it was rolled off its seat to the east.

To save column space I'll just give the URL where my research is posted:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Chris, We can debate the points I have made there if you like.
Note to all: I will be moderating all comments and only thoughtful, intelligent comments will be posted.

Nada ;-)

You will have this refutation of 5 points of the NIST claim for wtc7 collapse published in which peer reviewed journal?

I eagerly await its publication... when will this be?

 

[TruthersLie]

no, it hasnt happened before. in all their yrs of experience, these "fire wise" professionals "expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

"Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

irreducable delusion noted.

 

[Toke]

It's the world's longest slow-pitch, but my personal opinion of femr2 / Major_Tom's endgame is this:

Analyze the collapses in in order to find the smallest specific failure that could have *initiated* the global collapse. Then, calculate what small device / cause could have been used to artificially start the initiation. A small "boom" for instance (ETA - based on recent posts, a boom small enough not to be heard by a certain camera in a certain location). It's a bit of circular logic, in that there would be no way to know that, for instance, a certain column failure would cause global collapse without studying the global collapse retrospectively to learn this, but that's just my 2p.

Of course, he could simply state his ultimate goal, but that would undermine his whole passive/aggressive intentionally-vague-speech-as-control mechanism schtick.

I believe you are overestimating them, greatly.
Perhaps you have seen "Thank you for smoking" and project your ideas for how a rational competent human could attempt to argue their position.

 

[TruthersLie]

its called speculation. prof jones found chips with multiple layers. was this stuff sprayed on or was it pre fabricated meaning it could came in multiple layers and rolled out onto the steel. if it came say 10 layers thick, one could easily put a layer of sulfur down then more layers of the red grey chip material then sulfur and so on...


yeah. its speculation.


but he did state that this experiment exhibited the same corrosion characteristics that barnett found regarding the wtc 7 steel:
"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel. OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject."

link... not bare assertion fallacy.

Where is this scientific "paper" which he demonstrates and show sthe similarities?

Linky.

 

[Animal]

This is silly for a couple reasons.

1) When the bolts had failed and the girder was pushed to the west, there was no axial restraint on the beams near column 79.

Wrong. The floor beams connected to the girder would have continued to restain the girder until they buckled. THe outer wall column flange would have also restrained the girder at that end.

2) When the girder had been pushed off its seat, it was removed from the model.

Which has what to do with your claim of the girder moving east in Fig 8-27? Which is still obvious there, and that you are basing your false claim on.
The beams and girders were removed from the computer modelling WRT the remaining structure....i.e. lateral support of the columns


It is really quite simple... the floor beams pushed the girder west, the girder stayed on the seat after the bolt failure because of the column flange, Fig 8-20. It didn't on Col 79. The beams buckled closet to where to was restrained, at Col, When the beams failed they pulled on the igirder causing it to rotate as shown in Fig 8-27.


Your claim fails again.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, you seem to be having trouble with the simplest of physical principles.


Gravity is not *enegy* Beachnut.

Is English your first language ? (As what you are writing is pretty nonsensical)


One would have thought that a basic understanding of gravity would be a pre-requisite for pilot training where you are. I shudder to think how many times you have proclaimed *got physics ? got math ?*, and yet you seem more than a little lacking.

LOL, I understand it all, but I can't write or express it well. Darn. But I sure had fun flying! And I was great, maybe the best.

Here is what 911 truth does best.

Got physics? No, he has delusion of CD. You have delusions of CD, you are very covert about about it.
Here is what I did best.

UPT, hero shot; what a geek.
I got better.

A young engineer, in a rocket seat. Got Physics? Me? Lived physics.

Happy chicks in tow. I give them fuel, they do a barrel roll around our plane. Math required. I tell my students, math is required. If you used some math on 911 you would not be stuck asking questions and making up covert delusions of CD.

Like my writing, I was a failure; I wanted to be a pilot, they made me an instructor pilot. oops

More physics and math. The pilot in the lead plane went on to be an astronaut after test pilot school. Boeing jets. The jets on 911 were easier to fly than these 707 variants I flew.

I am not lacking in pyysics physics and math, I understand 911, you need to use physics and math to help you figure out 911. Good luck.


My writing is nonsensical? You can figure out I write poorly, but you can't figure out 911. Irony. Your great writing skills don't translate into understanding 911. So? Not news. I already know how bad my writing is, too bad you can't apply that same super analytical prowess to figuring out 911.

 

[carlitos]

Don't ever change, beachnut.

 

[femr2]

You have no understanding of gravity,potential energy and kinetic energy. Which words of that sentence do you not understand? Tell me and I'll explain them to you. Where did you study physics?

Ho Ho. You're dodging the question, again.

Let me make it *simpler* for you...

Energy doesn't come from gravity,that's a good one. Try opening a physics book. It is pointless trying to explain anything to you until you have a basic grounding in the subject.

If you can figure out a way of converting "gravity" into "energy", go for it. Revolutionise the world

(Converting gravitational potential energy into other forms, such as kinetic energy, will not win you any awards. Don't confuse the two )

I can only repeat what sabretooth said,in the vain hope that you will finally understand it.
"Every standing structure has stored *potential* energy due to *gravity*. Do you not understand basic physics?"

The cracks are all widening now. Stored ? Standing relative to what ? lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show

That answers my question. You have never studied physics.

I have now asked you twice what issues you have with my final post above, and twice you have simply ignored the question. I'll summarise for you...

1) Gravity and Gravitational Potential Energy are not the same thing. I made the point earlier for you to not confuse the two.

2) You can only repeat what Sabretooth said...because you don't actually understand in any useful detail, otherwise you would have noticed the problems with his statement, and not repeated it.

3) I mentioned *stored* and *standing relative to what*, as the notion of stored gravitational potential energy is a bit of a misnomer, as the energy potential is dependant upon the frame of reference, which you can change at will. For you to understand, consider the GPE of a ball 1m from *the ground*, call it (x). Dig a 100m deep hole underneath the ball without touching the ball at all. *The ground* is now 101m below the ball, and so the frame of reference has changed. The GPE is no longer (x), but you have not *stored* any further energy at any point.

4) I mentioned that *even gravity as a force is *fictitious**, as there are many who may quibble stating gravity as a force in terms of general relativity (and the reason why I included that I'd spend some time surfing curved space-time ). Gravity is most certainly not energy.

So, I'll ask you again, what issues do you have with the following...

The cracks are all widening now. Stored ? Standing relative to what ? lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show

 

[Christopher7]

1) When the bolts had failed and the girder was pushed to the west, there was no axial restraint on the beams near column 79.

The floor beams connected to the girder would have continued to restain the girder until they buckled.

There was no axial restraint on the beams and therefore no axial compression to cause the beams to buckle.

2) When the girder had been pushed off its seat, it was removed from the model.

Which has what to do with your claim of the girder moving east in Fig 8-27?

It's not "my claim", it's a statement in the report.

Which is still obvious there

That's the problem, the girder and beams were removed from the model when the girder was was no longer supported by the seat at column 79.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when . . . . . . . (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. . . . . . . . When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

This is before the beams supposedly buckled.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*.

That's so dumb to say!

 

[femr2]

LOL, I understand it all, but I can't write or express it well. Darn.

Then I am surprised* that you are not scorning the use of phrases such as *the energy to crush the tower comes from gravity*. A very poor statement.

* Seems to be simply an unwritten rule for you folks not to criticise each other

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Chris obviously hasn't heard the firefighter motto:

NEVER TRUST THE TRUSS!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Then I am surprised* that you are not scorning the use of phrases such as *the energy to crush the tower comes from gravity*. A very poor statement.

* Seems to be simply an unwritten rule for you folks not to criticise each other

Ever heard of kinetic energy? If not, I suggest you Google it before shooting your mouth off.

 

[Sabretooth]

Then I am surprised* that you are not scorning the use of phrases such as *the energy to crush the tower comes from gravity*. A very poor statement.

* Seems to be simply an unwritten rule for you folks not to criticise each other

You're harping on nonsense.

No matter how it was said, gravity is a causual factor in the collapse.

Once the structural integrity of the towers were compromised, the stored potential energy was converted to kinetic energy as assisted by gravity.

Who cares how it was said? You go right ahead and call it what makes you feel comfortable in that little hole of yours...you don't seem to understand the basic principal to begin with.