Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Craig4]

Jesus man. Go to the video and count. There are far fewer than 10 seconds after the penthouse collapses until the entire structure begins collapsing.

Explain this post in detail. Feel free to use math and big words. Why is this a problem?

 

[aggle-rithm]

WTC 7's damage was one sided. Why then did it not simply topple in that direction?

Because the collapse occured in real life, not in a movie.

 

[beachnut]

Nonsense. It's pure speculation on your part. You're trying to fill in blanks with more blanks. NIST made no such determination and there is no physical evidence to support your claim.

What destroys WTC 7 as it collapses is the force exerted by the ground below it. There is no evidence of any pre-buckling that occurred. That's just your guesswork.

Is this engineering, or nonsense? Nonsense. You may not have this engineering stuff under control, you are spreading nonsense. Do you understand the physical world?
If I had doubts on this issue, I would attend engineering school and get a degree. Why have your ideas on 911 failed? What is wrong with your claims? They are not based on physics or engineering. Do you understand this? What did the FBI say when you raised doubts that 19 terrorists did not do 911, but you gave them your delusional take on engineering aspects of 911? You have take your evidence to someone, right?

 

[chrismohr]

Is this the one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413&hl=en-CA#

NIST studied all the videos and statements.
NCSTAR 1A pg 29 [pdf pg 71]
The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.
By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning . . . . . There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7.

Chris7,

I'm not sure if this is it... it was a small clip from it if so, and there was another one as well.

More importantly right now, I agree with everyone else, you are in so far over your head with Tri it's embarrassing. You're good at digging up written research on level 101 theoretical material but TRI WAS THERE, and he had specialized training in exactly what you are arguing with him about. You write him off because he's chosen not to give his real name and you say that therefore your firefighting 101 google link carries more weight than a technically trained expert who was there! You ignore much of what he says and tell him he's wrong about the fire hose pressure he teaches people about! Come on man choose your battles! This is not only embarrassing, it's insulting to Tri. Not that Tri needs me to defend him, he's tougher than both of us put together...

 

[beachnut]

...Then why were they were putting water on WTC 6?...

To keep it from collapsing on their fallen firemen and police crushed by the WTC towers. Have you figured out 911 after nearly 10 years? No, you could have a PhD in structural engineering by now, but instead you have some perverted obsession with NIST and the need to spread nonsense. 19 terrorists did 911, and you can't do engineering, fire science, firefighting, structural engineering, metallurgical science, and more. What is it that you do? Why have you failed to bring this to the FBI? What action have you taken with your nonsense beside failing to figure out 911 after 10 years?

How tall was WTC 6? Oh no, parts of WTC 6 steel failed in fire. Now what?

 

[leftysergeant]

An anonymous poster says he was there. Even if he was, that does not make him an expert. He was wrong about the ability of pump trucks to pump water up to the 12th floor.

Where do you think you get the chops to make a brain-dead statement like that in the presence of veteran fire fighters who know better?

 

[leftysergeant]

Then why were they were putting water on WTC 6?

Because there was a chance of extinguishing it and there were materials in the buillding capable of inflicting serious damage if they cooked off. They could actually apply water to a large part of the interior of WTC6 through the roof. Any fire fighter couldl figure that out. Ask one and you wouldn't post such embarrassingly inane questions on the net.

Firefighters entered WTC 7 and rescued people from the 7th and 8th floors about noon. They reported a cubicle fire on floor 7 and no fire on floor 8.

Meaningless.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7,

I'm not sure if this is it... it was a small clip from it if so, and there was another one as well.

More importantly right now, I agree with everyone else, you are in so far over your head with Tri it's embarrassing. You're good at digging up written research on level 101 theoretical material

Theoretical? No! I am simply doing research, finding the facts and posting them. Did you check the sources I gave? Who do you believe, TFC or the real experts?

TFC is talking thru his hat and your blind faith is unwarranted.

This particular debate started with my response to your statement:

NIST says the building was eventually no match for the flames that raged out of control for several hours after the firefighters were unable to pour any more water on it.

Incorrect
They had water and plenty of pressure at 1:30 p.m.

TFC is trying to say they did not have sufficient pressure to reach the 12th floor. The sites I quoted from prove him wrong.

Fireboat Harvey Cross connections in the firemain allow them to be set up in series to deliver a total of 8000 gpm at 300 psi. Tests showed the pumps exceeded their rating, pumping over 18,000 gpm (80 tons) which is equal to 20 - or five alarm's worth - of land fire engines.
http://www.fireboat.org/history/engineering.asp

[FONT=&quot]Fire math
By rounding up to 0.5 from 0.434, friction and head losses due to the hose itself are taken into account.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.firefightermath.org/index...d=31&Itemid=45

[/FONT]Standard pumper capacity ratings start from 500 gpm and increase in 250 gpm increments (NFPA 19 Specification) up to 2000 gpm.
http://www.firefightermath.org/index...d=31&Itemid=45

Fire pumps are designed to perform as follows:
100% of rated capacity at 150 psi net pump pressure
70% of rated capacity at 200 psi net pump pressure
50% of rated capacity at 250 psi net pump pressure
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~jkemmler/chapter4.htm

[FONT=&quot]The math is not difficult:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The floors were approximately 12 feet.
12 x 12 = 144 x .5 = 72 psi loss
A 1000 gmp pump truck, operating at 200 psi, can deliver 700 gmp at 128 psi to the 12th floor.
[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

Because there was a chance of extinguishing it and there were materials in the buillding capable of inflicting serious damage if they cooked off. They could actually apply water to a large part of the interior of WTC6 through the roof. Any fire fighter couldl figure that out. Ask one and you wouldn't post such embarrassingly inane questions on the net.

1) I'm not asking questions, I'm giving answers.
2) At 1:30 there were fires on floors 7 and 12 in WTC 7
3) WTC 6 was a lost cause but WTC 7 was not.
4) The photo shows the water reaching about the 7th floor of an 8 story building so your "apply water to a large part of the interior of WTC 6 through the roof" scenario is embarrassingly inane.

 

[Christopher7]

BTW with W Smith's post we hit 1500 posts to this thread, equalling the number of Architects and Engineers on Richard Gage's petition!

Whoops! It's back to 1487 because my debunking of TFC got moved to another thread. I have responded to you there.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7294022&postcount=6788

 

[Clayton Moore]

No Dave.

Telling an individual whom you don't know to learn something has no bearing on the argument presented. Basic physics demonstrate your fallacies. Steel resists more than air, all the time. WTC 7 didn't come down piece by piece, in a haphazard fashion that would be associated with its haphazard damage.

It came down in very uniform fashion. Its biggest facade damage was on its southwest corner, yet its collapse still began with a central bowing. Its north side was virtually unscathed in all regards, yet its steel components were still measured at free fall.

So if the north face's structure reached free fall for 2.25 seconds, what is the estimate of debunkers as per the amount of free fall the heavily damaged south face experienced?

That's a lot of common sense. Maybe you should break it down a bit as I sense more than the usual overload.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Where do you think you get the chops to make a brain-dead statement like that in the presence of veteran fire fighters who know better?

Chops?

You must be kidding. Where's that picture of Napoleon?

 

[Oystein]

Nonsense. It's pure speculation on your part. You're trying to fill in blanks with more blanks. NIST made no such determination and there is no physical evidence to support your claim.

What destroys WTC 7 as it collapses is the force exerted by the ground below it. There is no evidence of any pre-buckling that occurred. That's just your guesswork.

What do you doubt here? That, in stage 1, the north face fell? That it fell at increasing acceleration (increasing from 0 to g, remaining below g during stage 1, which is the very definition of stage 1)? Or do you doubt that acceleration <g means that some resistance was left? Or that increasing acceleration means that resistance decreased? Or that columns that formerly resisted a fall but don't do any longer have buckled?
Temp, my logic is clear, simple and complete: The very fact that acceleration increased means that resistance decreased - why? Because mass stays the same, gravity stays the same, so when net acceleration of the wall changes, but are <g, that means that there is a force f that is greater than 0, but less than g, that acts upwards, and that force is decreasing. What force could that be? It is what you call "rwesistance", it excerted by the structure below. That force decreases means, the structure loses more and more of its stregth. This process, alomost by definition, is called "buckling".



Please, tempesta, explain how the north wall fell at accelerations increasing from 0 to almost g without columns increasingly buckling!

 

[Clayton Moore]

What are you really saying here - that the FDNY is incompetent, or that the FDNY was in on it? Or why else did THEY say they didn't have enough water pressure to engage the fires in WTC7? C7, use your imagination, I really want to know just what you think you are saying here!

Orders to a FD are top down. Try the Mayor.

 

[Clayton Moore]

What do you doubt here? That, in stage 1, the north face fell? That it fell at increasing acceleration (increasing from 0 to g, remaining below g during stage 1, which is the very definition of stage 1)? Or do you doubt that acceleration <g means that some resistance was left? Or that increasing acceleration means that resistance decreased? Or that columns that formerly resisted a fall but don't do any longer have buckled?
Temp, my logic is clear, simple and complete: The very fact that acceleration increased means that resistance decreased - why? Because mass stays the same, gravity stays the same, so when net acceleration of the wall changes, but are <g, that means that there is a force f that is greater than 0, but less than g, that acts upwards, and that force is decreasing. What force could that be? It is what you call "rwesistance", it excerted by the structure below. That force decreases means, the structure loses more and more of its stregth. This process, alomost by definition, is called "buckling".



Please, tempesta, explain how the north wall fell at accelerations increasing from 0 to almost g without columns increasingly buckling!

Another newly redefined 9/11 truster term.
At least it was spelled correctly.
Which demands a need for 9/11 truster redefined term limits.

 

[leftysergeant]

1) I'm not asking questions, I'm giving answers.[/QAUOTE]

And you are telling professionals in the field that your blather is more valid than their experience.. I have not seen you make a true statement in the last four posts.

2) At 1:30 there were fires on floors 7 and 12 in WTC 7

Fire Science 101:

FIRES IN LOCATIONS WHERE THERE IS ADEQUATE FUEL AND AIR SPREAD IF NOT EXTINGUISHED.

Have I made myself clear? Do you understand why your statement is irrelevant?

3) WTC 6 was a lost cause but WTC 7 was not.

Horse hockey. The building was showing signs of instability already. There was nobody left in there to rescue. It was not worth the risk of a human life. It was not known whether anyone was still alive in WTC 6. You extinguish the fires and attempt a rescue or recovery.

There were also vast amounts of explosive material there that nobody wanted to see cook off.

This, also, is Fire Science 101 stuff.

4) The photo shows the water reaching about the 7th floor of an 8 story building so your "apply water to a large part of the interior of WTC 6 through the roof" scenario is embarrassingly inane.

That is a ground-mounted deluge nozzle. A schnorkel, if there were not too many rigs competing for the same water, could get up there. I have seen photos that suggest that they could reach it easily.

Nothing that you are saying about any of the photos you offer supports your idea that FDNY was ready to do anything else.

 

[Oystein]

Orders to a FD are top down. Try the Mayor.

CM, could you make a defined claim here, please?
"They Mayor, Rudi Giuliani, ordered the FDNY to not fight the fires in WTC7. The FDNY, represented by Chief Daniel Nigro, obeyed. The FDNY was thus in on the government conspiracy to kill more than 2500 humans in New York, including hundreds of their own men".

Clayton, does this statement fairly represent your opinion? If not please correct me. Try to make this a well-defined claim, not something weasly. Something that you stand up for like a man (which reminds me to ask you again: How old are you, Clayton_Moore? Are you a man yet?).

 

[Christopher7]

What do you doubt here? That, in stage 1, the north face fell? That it fell at increasing acceleration (increasing from 0 to g, remaining below g during stage 1, which is the very definition of stage 1)? Or do you doubt that acceleration <g means that some resistance was left? Or that increasing acceleration means that resistance decreased? Or that columns that formerly resisted a fall but don't do any longer have buckled?
Temp, my logic is clear, simple and complete: The very fact that acceleration increased means that resistance decreased - why? Because mass stays the same, gravity stays the same, so when net acceleration of the wall changes, but are <g, that means that there is a force f that is greater than 0, but less than g, that acts upwards, and that force is decreasing. What force could that be? It is what you call "rwesistance", it excerted by the structure below. That force decreases means, the structure loses more and more of its stregth. This process, alomost by definition, is called "buckling".

Please, tempesta, explain how the north wall fell at accelerations increasing from 0 to almost g without columns increasingly buckling!

Gobbeldee-gook followed by an asinine question.

We all know that the entire upper portion of WTC 7 moved down as a single unit. We can see that in the videos. NIST saw that in the videos. That's why they said:
"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed"

Stage 1
As the columns buckled, the center of the roof line moved down ~7 feet and the NE corner moved down ~3 feet. .
Then there was a slight pause of .25s in the center and .5s at the NE corner, when the building was not moving down.
Stage 2
Then the entire building above what was buckled columns went into free fall acceleration for ~100 feet.
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/5822/graphcompare.jpg

Are you with me so far?

Here is where the problem arises. You guys try to gobbleldee-gook around the fact that FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance, no columns at all. Even Shyam Sunder knows that.
"[FONT=&quot]a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

The 52 undamaged exterior columns did NOT all "snap" at the same time, they continued buckling well into the period of FFA and they were providing resistance as Sunder said they were.
"[/FONT]there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.[FONT=&quot]"
He is right about that. The NIST model is providing resistance during the time of FFA and you can't have FFA if there is any resistance.
[/FONT] http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

[FONT=&quot]FFA means NO resistance so [/FONT]the NIST model does not do what WTC 7 did. To achieve FFA, all the columns on 7 to 8 floors must be removed.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[leftysergeant]

[FONT=&quot]FFA means NO resistance so [/FONT]the NIST model does not do what WTC 7 did. To achieve FFA, all the columns on 7 to 8 floors must be removed.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Not really. Some of them buckled early, some reisisted. There is nothing I have seen to preclude the possibility that the last remaining columns went at the same time and the undamaged wall was pulled off its supports on one of the higher floors and wound up over a void into which it could fall unimpeded for a few floors.

 

[Oystein]

Gobbeldee-gook followed by an asinine question.

Wait a second - I am debating tempesta and Clayton, and the only one whose question you call "asinine" is me?!?!? Does this imply that you think anything at all that tempesta or Clayton (particularly Clayton) write is anything but asinine? Seriously??? You find nothing wrong with their posts? Or is this the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stance? How asinine!

We all know that the entire upper portion of WTC 7 moved down as a single unit. We can see that in the videos. NIST saw that in the videos. That's why they said:
"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed"

As a matter of fact, no, I don't know that. I know however that the east part of the core moved several seconds before the rest, and that the western core moved before the face. Maybe this is semantics, but in my book, that means the entire upper portion of the building did NOT move as a single unit, because portions of it moved earlier than others. A fact that not even YOU deny. It doesn't matter much what NIST writes. Their wording may be imprecise here. I claim they do not really mean the entire building (core, all floors, all walls), but the part that was actually observed (the north and west faces)

Stage 1
As the columns buckled,

STOP!
What do you say? The columns buckled in stage 1? Wow!
That is the very thing that, apparently, tempesta denies, when he writes:

This is so obviously wrong, it is hard to come up with an idea how to make it even more obvious to you, who can't grasp the simple concept that buckked steel becomes a liability, not a support, to a structure. Remember, we are talking about stage 2, which is AFTER the strructural steel in question has buckled inelastically and completely.

There is no evidence to support this. Bring it.

Obviously, I was implying that before stage 2, during stage 1, columns buckled. You say the very same thing. Tempesta says there is no evidence for it.

And you call my question, what other theory tempesta has to explain what was observed during stage 1 "asinine"?!? Give me a break!

the center of the roof line moved down ~7 feet and the NE corner moved down ~3 feet. .
Then there was a slight pause of .25s in the center and .5s at the NE corner, when the building was not moving down.
Stage 2
Then the entire building above what was buckled columns went into free fall acceleration for ~100 feet.
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/5822/graphcompare.jpg

Are you with me so far?

Absolutely! That is what I tried to explain to tempesta: During stage 1, columns buckled, and in stage 2, everything had completely buckled, which is the best explanation for free fall. How would tempesta, or you, explain free fall without completely buckled columns? That was my asinine question, but I see we are on the same side here. Does that make your explanation asinine, too?

Here is where the problem arises. You guys try to gobbleldee-gook around the fact that FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance, no columns at all.

Where did I gobbleldee-gook around this?? Did I not write earlier in this thread...

...
Stage 2 is reached when the increasing acceleration / buckling reached the point where the north face fell essentially at g means that by then, all columns had buckled. If you disagree with this last statement, you disagree with your own claims.

???
How does this fundamentally differ from your own explanation?

...
The 52 undamaged exterior columns did NOT all "snap" at the same time, they continued buckling well into the period of FFA and they were providing resistance as Sunder said they were.
"[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.[FONT=&quot]"

Wait a second ... we have a force of m*g acting downwards. Then we have a force of m*a_resistance<>0 acting upwards. The result is an acceleration of the mass m of g.
This means that there must be an additional force acting a_unknown downwards, for the following equation to pan out:
m*g = m*g - m*a_resistance + m*a_unknown

Are you with me?
So what is this a_unknown during stage 2? Rockets pushing down?

He is right about that. The NIST model is providing resistance during the time of FFA and you can't have FFA if there is any resistance.
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

Stop. Tempesta and I were discussing what really happened, as observed:
Stage 1 - acceleration increasing from 0 to g
Stage 2 - acceleration essentially at g.
We were NOT discussing any NIST model!

FFA means NO resistance so the NIST model does not do what WTC 7 did. To achieve FFA, all the columns on 7 to 8 floors must be removed.

No. It suffices if the buckle and break.
Or do you deny that a buckled and broken column provides no resistane?
You already taught us that, during stage 1, columns buckled. Do you stand by that? Columns buckling resukt in a decrease of resistance, that is a decrease in force acting upwards, resulting in an increased acceleration downwards. When acceleration reaches g, that means upward forces have reached 0, that means buckling is completed, columns have totally failed. What is wrong about that? Don't tell me the NIST model is. I don't know if it is or isn't, that is totally irrelevant here.

All I want you and tempesta to explain to me how else resistance is reduced, if not by buckling columns.

I would like to ask YOU to then teach tempesta what the observations during stage 1 mean in terms of buckling columns!


I hope you have by now understood that my question wasnÄ't asinine - it was spot on, directed at someone too stupid to realize that the observation of stage 1 means "columns are buckling".