Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
And a lot slower - kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity, so that's pretty important.
Dave
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
AE911Truth pressures NIST for decision on WTC 7 report
- Thread starter Jaytje46
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ae911truth richard gage wtc7
And a lot slower - kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity, so that's pretty important.
Dave
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
AE911Truth have a court case against them. NIST have said that AE911Truth don't have standing and as I understand it, they are currently waiting for the court to rule on this.AND - the strict topic of the thread is:
" AE911Truth pressures NIST for decision on WTC 7 report"
.. which is an interesting process to observe esp how NIST responds. And my opinions about the strategic role of that part of the game is a topic for another more appropriate place.
The AE911Truth filing is filled with lies and misinformation. And they want the court to compel NIST, among other things to amend their report to say there were explosions high up on the eastern end of the building, under the east penthouse.
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 673
Darn good point.
bknight
Master Poster
Yes but it was aluminum versus steel. 
The B-25, at the Empire State Building, hit with the Kinetic Energy equal to 41 pounds of TNT and easily breached the façade of the building.
Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC with the energy equal to ~1,400 and ~2,000 pounds of TNT.
11 and 175 would do major damage to anything they hit on 9/11.
Robertson said the the WTC would resist and impact of an 707 at 180 mph, with the impact kinetic energy equal to 185 pounds of TNT. Based on other studies and energy involved, the shell would stop the 707 lost in fog...
Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC with the energy equal to ~1,400 and ~2,000 pounds of TNT.
11 and 175 would do major damage to anything they hit on 9/11.
Robertson said the the WTC would resist and impact of an 707 at 180 mph, with the impact kinetic energy equal to 185 pounds of TNT. Based on other studies and energy involved, the shell would stop the 707 lost in fog...
Fonebone
persona non grata
This link leads to a PDF that delineates the amended suit filed against the NIST...
AE911Truth filing https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/AE_FAC_Court_file_date_stamped_and_redacted.pdf
The complaint , filed 31 January 2022 list 370 items, Numbered 1-thru 370, for you to peruse in order for you
to substantiate the claims highlighted in your post above.
Please cite the complaint item number of every lie and/or misinformation you identify for cross reference.
Lie #1
Lie #2
Lie #3
...etc.
AE911 Truth filing
Misrepresentations #1
Misrepresentations #2
Misrepresentations #3
...etc.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
You know that you never respond to anything so why do you think I will go to the trouble of writing a long post for you to ignore.
I have actually gone through a couple of these with a member of AE911Truth.
So let's just try one example, but, given your track record, you need to first answer one question which relates to this.
The bus and cars on Vesey Street, did they catch fire before the towers collapsed or during one of the collapses? (If you don't know, just say so).
If you engage with this one then we can start going through the others.
Last edited:
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Let us face it. The harder task is to find something that is not, at least, disinformation in that filing.
But let's start with an easy one.
219 from fonebone's link. What audio recording that indicates explosives at the beginning or any time during the collapse of WTC 7?
Presumably they want to use David Chandler's exercise of putting the audio of one of the videos and claiming that the clattering sound we hear is explosives cutting a number of steel columns.
But the fact is that there is no evidence, audio or otherwise, for explosives in any of the collapse videos and, given how close most of them were, there should have been.
That is lie number one.
Number two to follow fonebone's answer to my question above.
But let's start with an easy one.
219 from fonebone's link. What audio recording that indicates explosives at the beginning or any time during the collapse of WTC 7?
Presumably they want to use David Chandler's exercise of putting the audio of one of the videos and claiming that the clattering sound we hear is explosives cutting a number of steel columns.
But the fact is that there is no evidence, audio or otherwise, for explosives in any of the collapse videos and, given how close most of them were, there should have been.
That is lie number one.
Number two to follow fonebone's answer to my question above.
Last edited:
Point 14 is the first lie I could spot.
14. NIST's demonstrable failure to establish and report the likely technical cause of the destruction of WTC7 has severely impeded for 13 years AE's mission of establishing the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11, leading AE to devote substantial resources to scrutinizing the NIST WTC 7 report and publicly critiquing its findings.
NIST's report has not impeded anything like that, but especially not for 13 years. AE911T had the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was induced by explosives, but they didn't have anything to support it for many years. Now they have the (laughable, on the other hand, but that's another matter) Hulsey report. Therefore, before the Hulsey report they didn't have "the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11" (according to them), thus saying 13 years is a lie.
14. NIST's demonstrable failure to establish and report the likely technical cause of the destruction of WTC7 has severely impeded for 13 years AE's mission of establishing the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11, leading AE to devote substantial resources to scrutinizing the NIST WTC 7 report and publicly critiquing its findings.
Last edited:
It is telling, however, that they thought they had the "full truth" since the beginning, and funded the report just to prove it. It speaks as to how biased the report is. It doesn't help that the signer and the other authors are actually members of AE911T.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
This is a total Fail, I can destroy this case in five second on the Grounds that in this AE9/11 Truth Committed Purgery, on several accounts.
bknight
Master Poster
Seagull post from our favorite troll.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I can't seem to access the document, or indeed the AE911Truth site, so I can't do my own Time To First Lie analysis, but the first misrepresentation in the document is surely the title 'AE911Truth'.
Dave
Dave
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Then there's this:
I can't find any reference to this petition having been submitted to Congress: is this actually true?
In any case, the signatories, as Oystein has painstakingly shown, are not all verified architects or engineers.
TTFL? No further than Point 11, it seems.
I can't find any reference to this petition having been submitted to Congress: is this actually true?
In any case, the signatories, as Oystein has painstakingly shown, are not all verified architects or engineers.
TTFL? No further than Point 11, it seems.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Two things.
First, there is no formal process established either by the Constitution or by Congress' own rules of business (neither Senate nor House) to "submit a petition to Congress", so no one ever has submitted to Congress any petition. It is however easily possible to "submit" a petition, or a letter, or a box of candies, to any member of Congress - by mail, email, drop-off at their Washington office or home district office, etc, and throughout the years, many fans of AE have thus "submitted the petition" to their Rep or Sen. In 99.9% of cases, the "petition" has then speedily been filed in the round bin, we may safely estimate.
This talk of "submitting to Congress" is mere rethoric and semantics, with no practical consequences.
Secondly, I have documented over the years I have documented that a solid majority of the signatories ARE architects or engineers at least by university degree. The list of 3,500 is NOT bogus - it is what AE claims it is. A small percentage of exceptions is not enough to withhold a good grade for the validity of the Signatures.
What I do criticize are facts such as: 3,500 is, after 15 years of campaigning, a tiny number; so many signatures are so old that a significant number of signatories has already died, and many surely no longer support even the very limited scope of the petition's language; many adchitects and engineers are not qualified to assess the engineering facts of 9/11 (land surveyors, electrical engineers, ...), and most obviously are not well informed about the facts of 9/11 (they only heard the AE "Truth" ********).
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Thanks for clarifying this. I remember you posting that a number of the signatories had retired or died, and that also a number of them were not currently practising or not qualified in relevant fields. Evidently, some of those details had escaped me -e.g. the numbers of those not actually qualified, or the numbers not relevantly qualified.
However, the fact remains that the claim is invalid on a number of fronts. No doubt fonebone will ignore this and persist with this nonsense.
9/11 solved who did it in days, 9/11 truth has No Clue
truthlies
9/11 truth, a 1984 like name for 9/11 Liars and Fools
Why expose them as liars and nuts again?
Did you read the pdf you posted? It exposes your cult leaders to be idiots on all issues involving 9/11.
Not understanding steel corroded in fire means science/engineering/fire science is not a part of ae911
9/11 truth, a 1984 like name for 9/11 Liars and Fools
Why expose them as liars and nuts again?
Did you read the pdf you posted? It exposes your cult leaders to be idiots on all issues involving 9/11.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
These 370 items - upon a first quick glance, many contain prose without relevance, void of any claim about the events of 9/11 (such as claims about "standing", or how proud young Bobby McI. made his father).
Here is what I'll do:
I will create a little spreadsheet that gives me 10 random numbers between 1 and 370, and I shall list the 10 items such numbered and assess them. Deal? I am doing this because right now a mild evening sun is shining through the window directly on me as I sit at my desk at home with nothing better to do. I am feeling generous and kind
Here are the ten random item numbers:
12
23
70
120
148
160
197
288
332
336
Misleading: The 9/11 Commission Report and the year of its publication are of zero relevance to the case, NIST's work, any alleged "technical evidence".
Misleading: The paragraph makes it sound as if AE911Truth has been making public presentations since 2004, when in fact it wasn't even founded until 2006.
Misleading: The paragraph makes it sound as if "technical evidence" had been presented regarding "nano-thermite or nano-thermate" in or before 2004, when in fact the fraudulent, paid-for-to-publish paper by Steven Jones under the false lead author name "Harrit" had only been published in 2009.
Lie: The claim that there is any technical evidence for the presence, let alone use, of nano-therm*te, let alone its use to "destroy" anything. Everybody at AE911Truth must be painfully aware that Jones has presented a fraud, a very elaborate lie.
Obvious nonsense: No one ever forced AE's hand. AE has at all times since its existence been able to provide to the public anything they wanted to, limited only by their own resources. In particular, there was no need whatsoever to rebut and refute the NIST report on WTC7 before coming up with an own theory. Science does not advance by refuting extant hypotheses, it advances by proposing new, better hypotheses which end up replacing the old one, provided they are found to explain reality better.
Blatant Dishonesty: AE complains about a government agency issuing a report - but they would also complain if NO government agency had issued a report.
Irrelevant. The public law is what it is, regardless of what it may or may not be "commonly known as".
Misleading: There is no such thing in US law as a "Petition to Congress". What AE has submitted is individual stacks of paper or perhaps electronic mailings to members of Congress. There are to date, after more than 14 years of such "petitioning", exactly ZERO Members of Congress who have indicated they would support the kind of legislation that AE, presumably, seeks.
Irrelevant: A US government agency's work cannot be expected to adhere to the wishes of a plaintiff in a foreign country who pushes a vexious claim there in foreign court.
Speculation: There is no way that AE can know that a change of report by NIST would have any effect on the already failed and dead "Grand Jury Petition" by LC911I, submitted and filed in the round cabinet three years ago already.
I do not know or understand enough about the issue being talked about here to have a solidly informed judgement on whether the underlying claim, that NIST left out some structural element (a stiffener) - could be there really was no stiffener. I'll assume, in the spirit of generosity, I'll accept that NIST did leave out a stiffener.
Bare assertion: I am pretty sure AE cannot and does not know that NIST omitted "a known structural feature" "intentional[ly]"
Bare assertion: How on earth would AE know what difference inclusion of those stiffeners would have made in the NIST collapse sequence? They never actually did sufficient modeling.
Speculation: AE cannot possibly know what other "independent investigators, scientists, researchers, or another government agency" who "attempted to reproduce NIST's WTC 7 study results with the information provided in the NIST WTC 7 Report" would come to "significantly different conclusions". As a matter of fact, other, independent investigators HAVE done modelling and found that collapse would ensue that would NOT be prevented by inclusion of that particular stiffener.
This is true.
Projection: The "irrational" claims are AE's, not NIST's
FALSE: The problem with the erosion of this one steel specimen is not so much that it's source cannot be 100% determined to be WTC7, the problem is that there is no way know where in WTC7 this would have been, and so further analysis would not help with the rational analysis of how fires caused the collapse and where collapse initiated.
Implied Bare Assertion/Speculation: AE assumes that hot corrosion of steel is relevant as a sign of some form of exotic "controlled demolition" - we all know they want to inject the (truly irrational) idea that somehow "thermate" (thermite spiked with sulfur) is the source of the sulfidation of that bit of steel - that's science fiction, made-up ********
Wishful Thinking. I see neither a technical not legal argument being served here.
Plain Idiocy: After more than 13 years, the "engineers" at AE have STILL not understood NIST's modelling approach and their consecutive modelling steps: The preliminary model is ... *drumroll* ... a ... (are you getting what I am getting at yet) ... preliminary model, not meant to capture everything that goes on around column 79 - it could not possibly have, for it was far too limited in scope. The purpose of this preliminary LS-DYNA model was "to confirm which failure modes needed to be accounted for in the 16-story ANSYS model" (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Chapter 8.8, p. 349). In that model of just a corner of a single floor, columns were absolutely fixed, girders and beams heated uniformly to a single temperature, concrete slabs were not heated at all. This is a model far simpler than the 16-story ANSYS model, which in addition to capturing differential heating and structural response between floors also ran through complex heating (and cooling) histories of the structural frame.
To pretend that a difference in outcome between a simple preliminary model and a complex "real" model is in need of an "[explanation] to [some] acceptable degree of scientific precision" is astoundingly stupid, revealing stunning ineptness - or hardened, cynical dishonesty.
Four items and one and a half pages later, they are still belaboring the stupendous ignorance and incompetence shown in item 332.
FALSE: NIST does in fact explain to more than sufficient detail the substantial modelling differences between the limited and preliminary Chapter 8.8 LS-DYNA model and the later (Chapter 11!!) ANSYS model, that has input from the fire history models and structural heating analysis, and which also allows all of the structure to move realistically (i.e. for columns to move laterally in response to expanding, contracting or sagging girders framing into them).
Again, to pretend that it is somehow not obvious and clear as the sun on a bright blue sky that a LIMITED AND PRELIMINARY model would have some results different from a realistic and comprehensive model reveals either bottomless stupidity or a fiendish level of evil fraudulence.
-------------
TLDR;
12: Misleading, Misleading, Misleading and Lie
23: Obvious nonsense, Blatant Dishonesty
70: Irrelevant
120: Misleading, Irrelevant, Speculation
148: Bare assertion, Bare assertion, Speculation
160: true
197: Projection, FALSE, Implied Bare Assertion/Speculation
288: Wishful Thinking
332: Plain Idiocy
336: FALSE, either bottomless stupidity or a fiendish level of evil fraudulence
9 out of 10 items have been shown to be worthless crap, anything from misleading to the worst of lies and imbecility.
The one "true" claim is merely a paraphrase of a single sentence in the Errata document to the NIST report, which shows that at least one person at AE has both the reading skills and the strength of character and honesty to correctly parse a single sentence written by NIST. Congratulations!
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
I might add that 288 could be handled in a freedom of information act submission. If they have done that and not received a response then our system of government reports is broken. If they got a report then they don't understand it.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,827
Yeah. Like I said, I felt generous and decided to go easy on AE and Fonebone.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Since I never actually expected fonebone to answer my question I will go ahead.
AE911Truth repeat Barry Jennings claim that he and Hess broke the window on the 8th floor before either of the towers had fallen when in fact they are perfectly aware that Jennings was almost certainly mistaken. In the Dylan Avery interview he states that when he broke that window he looked down and saw a burning bus and cars.
That bus on West Broadway and those cars were not burning before the towers fell. And we know that the timeline they suggest is implausible.
They have obviously worded it in a way they think this lie might be deniable, but they were well aware that Jennings words don't support their bomb theory.
Interestingly, I found out that AE911Truth will not work with any truthers who don't agree with their lie about Jennings.
AE911Truth repeat Barry Jennings claim that he and Hess broke the window on the 8th floor before either of the towers had fallen when in fact they are perfectly aware that Jennings was almost certainly mistaken. In the Dylan Avery interview he states that when he broke that window he looked down and saw a burning bus and cars.
That bus on West Broadway and those cars were not burning before the towers fell. And we know that the timeline they suggest is implausible.
They have obviously worded it in a way they think this lie might be deniable, but they were well aware that Jennings words don't support their bomb theory.
Interestingly, I found out that AE911Truth will not work with any truthers who don't agree with their lie about Jennings.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Congratulations despite your decision to "go easy".
I must be getting lazy. A sign of old age??
I read through most of the Gish Gallop of Garbage and couldn't decide on a basis for a rebuttal analysis.
My own preference when confronted by a "Gish Gallop" is:
(a) First to put the onus back onto the claimant to nominate which SINGLE factor of their claim they want me to address first (the option not available in this instance)
(b) I choose ONE based on my ranking as to its importance in the taxonomy of the structural relationship of the issues.. given the wide scope of the nonsense that one is not a practical approach; OR
(c) pick the first lie and carve that one up - first. But most of the earlier items are procedural - not substantive. There is no easily identifiable "first lie".
Last edited:
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
They state that Bobby McIlvaine was entering the WTC 1 building when he died when they are well aware that there is no evidence that this is the case. They talk of a preliminary concurrence from a forensic pathologist that the injuries were caused by an explosion. In fact they have a casual opinion by a pathologist during a documentary that there is not enough information to tell whether the injuries were caused by explosive force or by a falling object and he only concludes that it was explosive force after being given the misinformation that McIlvaine was entering the building at the time. They leave out that the presentation McIlvaine was there to set up for began before the plane even hit, or that his body was found on the perimeter of the WTC plaza or that there was plenty of dangerous falling debris just after the plane hit or that there is an eyewitness account if just such an injury from falling debris at the same time.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Allow me.
Time to first lie in the court filing occurs at Line #2:
Rather than elaborating on the alleged contradictions to the law and arbitrary and capricious actions, lines 3 through 26 of the court filing seems to go into a prolonged whinge about the money AE911T has spent over the years that they wouldn't expended on operational costs (Maintaining a website, renting a mail drop, mass mailings, printing promotional materials, producing documentaries etc) had NIST just come clean and admit they were lying in the first place.
Curiously there is no mention of the AE911T junkets to Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, SE Asia, nor the fact that the operational costs and junkets were funded, either partially or wholly, by donations from the addled, AKA their membership.
Line 27 departs from WTC 7 and starts up about some poor British citizen who was killed in the collapse of WTC 1.
Stopped reading at that point.
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
This last series of posts demonstrates, for me, the vast difference between the 'Truthers' and those who accept the common narrative. The depth of detail and the quality of analysis displayed here are far greater than anything posted by any of our resident truthers, or indeed by their sources.
It is a constant puzzle to me that anyone could look at the comparative levels of evidence, and the coherence of the explanations, and still go with the Truther side.
It is a constant puzzle to me that anyone could look at the comparative levels of evidence, and the coherence of the explanations, and still go with the Truther side.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
[twoofer mode] Occam's Razor says that I'm right and everyone else is wrong and Oystein's points weren't numbered 1 to 10 so 9/11 was for sure a conspiracy because and no-one has answered that so I'm still right and you're all stoopid. [/twoofer mode]
Just to save them the trouble.
Just to save them the trouble.
benthamitemetric
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Messages
- 572
It is somewhat humorous that AE911Truth has been coopted by a few bottomfeeder attorneys who now just use it as a platform to pay themselves to file nonsense suits that it then oversells to the gullible via fundraising emails. Reminder me in three years and I'll go and pull the docket of this stinker to confirm that AE911Truth has lost another, just like it lost its last two suits (see here and here).
Anyone want to take bets on which comes first: Mark Basile sharing his test results or AE911Truth informing its followers that it burned hundreds of thousands of their dollars unappealably losing the last two suits it filed?
Who would have guessed that an organization whose core mission necessarily attracts only the ignorant would be able to keep milking its supporters for years without them catching on as to what it was really up to?
Fonebone--for the sake of cosmic justice, I hope you are paying these lawyers out of your own pocket as well via donations to AE911Truth and not just advertising their scam for free.
Anyone want to take bets on which comes first: Mark Basile sharing his test results or AE911Truth informing its followers that it burned hundreds of thousands of their dollars unappealably losing the last two suits it filed?
Who would have guessed that an organization whose core mission necessarily attracts only the ignorant would be able to keep milking its supporters for years without them catching on as to what it was really up to?
Fonebone--for the sake of cosmic justice, I hope you are paying these lawyers out of your own pocket as well via donations to AE911Truth and not just advertising their scam for free.
Last edited:
Fonebone
persona non grata
If one picture is worth a thousand words,
one demonstration is worth a thousand pictures.
This animation of the WCT1 North tower collapse initiation demonstrates
a symmetrical collapse of the Hat-truss antenna structure and the supporting
vertical columns all collapsing in unison around the north and east perimeter
vertical wall columns . The fact of the vertical antenna falling straight down
proves the entire south and east vertical columns failed at the exact moment as well.
An absolutely near perfect definition of a symmetrical building collapse.
In order to create a symmetrical tower collapse the entire interior steel structure also
was neutralized at the exact same instant allowing the entire roof structure and floor slabs
to travel straight down towards the center of gravity as one unit
with out resistance.
The WTC 7 structure collapse was near identical symmetry after the penthouse
preamble failure. The north and west roofline falls with any hint of tipping supplying evidence that,
like the WTC1 tower, every vertical interior and external WTC7 columns were likewise neutralized
at the exact same instant to allow this symmetry.
The graphic in this post below shows what every interior and exterior columns
would have to act for this collapse symmetry.
-- link -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12819617#post12819617
Last edited:
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 673
First of all, the vertical antenna does NOT fall straight down, but such amateurish analysis of evidence is expected from those unwilling to be truthfully critical. By the simple test of holding your mouse pointer stationary up against the top of the image where the antenna appears, you will notice that it shifts slightly to the right in the latter image. A straight down fall would show no discernible difference.
As far as pictures, here is a video of a high rise with a partial metal structure that also collapses symmetrically due to fire damage (about 15 seconds in).
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
No it proves the outer perimeter columns supported significant ever increased loading until they buckled and blew out.
My sense was the entire top block translated laterally and then with out load paths aligning it dropped (and was tilted too). The floor plates and hat truss likely held it rather rigid perhaps...
or
the interior collapsed leaving a hollow shell which translated and then disintegrated as it dropped.
or
the interior collapsed leaving a hollow shell which translated and then disintegrated as it dropped.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Exactly the hat truss held the upper section together until the lower structure could no longer support the weight.
not exactly... lower "block" means nothing....structurally it would be the columns.
The mass of the upper block was all directed to the columns... core and perimeter... to the same on the lower section. If column alignment was destroyed top was freed to drop.
Or if aggregate axial capacity was below the service load there would be buckling and the top would descend.
The mass of the upper block was all directed to the columns... core and perimeter... to the same on the lower section. If column alignment was destroyed top was freed to drop.
Or if aggregate axial capacity was below the service load there would be buckling and the top would descend.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Truther engineers always model WTC 1 as though the top descended completely level, with each of the columns in the top.part landing exactly on the corresponding column below.
They partly get away with it as some non-truther engineers did more or less the same thing. The difference is, if course, that there is some validity in using this "simple model". If a building falls according to the simple model then that is a good indication that it will fall. If a building stands according to the simple model then that is not a good indication that it will stand.
But as it is there is already enough topple in the top parts of both the towers in the initial stages that the columns of the top parts are going to hit things like floor sections and horizontal beams and so the vertical strength of the columns is more or less irrelevant to the question of how quickly and in what manner the top part will descend.
They partly get away with it as some non-truther engineers did more or less the same thing. The difference is, if course, that there is some validity in using this "simple model". If a building falls according to the simple model then that is a good indication that it will fall. If a building stands according to the simple model then that is not a good indication that it will stand.
But as it is there is already enough topple in the top parts of both the towers in the initial stages that the columns of the top parts are going to hit things like floor sections and horizontal beams and so the vertical strength of the columns is more or less irrelevant to the question of how quickly and in what manner the top part will descend.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
The funny thing is that just recently Tony Szamboti has argued that the columns of the falling portion would exactly hit the columns of the lower intact portions because the massive inertia it had will twist any lateral movement.
Funny because he is more or less giving the game away here. The massive inertia the falling part resisting lateral movement does imply that a more or less symmetrical fall is to be expected.
Funny because he is more or less giving the game away here. The massive inertia the falling part resisting lateral movement does imply that a more or less symmetrical fall is to be expected.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
In the Banzant paper that was done on purpose to counter the Argument by members of the physics Community, at the time that the buildings fall should have Taken more time or arrested totally.
People have miss used that paper as an actual explanation of the collapse, without understand the context in which the paper was written.
If I recalled correctly early explanations suggested dropping "pancakes" (floors). The problem with that was it made no sense for all axial supports for the square donut shaped floors to fail simultaneously. So the collapsing floors was "correct"... but they were not pancakes.
The dropping top blocks led to entire floors being shattered and dropping... along with the perimeter panels as a tube. The dynamic loading on the intact floors led to the impacted floor to shatter and drop and this began a runaway process of shattering the floors rapidly all the way down. No pancakes... No columns were crushed... they were bypassed and actually unloaded by the floor collapse. But the columns were dependent on lateral bracing... and that was provided by the floor "system".... beams, girders, trusses and slabs. So the final act was the toppling of the core columns absent bracing and the the peeling and toppling of the perimeter.
Columns would only buckle from being overloaded in a process of load redistribution... when a column fails and it's loads are taken up by adjacent columns. This was the likely process going on in the cores as the fires raged... until the tops dropped, driven by heat from fire warping the frame and lowers the capacity of the steel. Slabs did not have the capacity to resist the mass falling and arrest the collapse. Once started every floor would collapse.
The dropping top blocks led to entire floors being shattered and dropping... along with the perimeter panels as a tube. The dynamic loading on the intact floors led to the impacted floor to shatter and drop and this began a runaway process of shattering the floors rapidly all the way down. No pancakes... No columns were crushed... they were bypassed and actually unloaded by the floor collapse. But the columns were dependent on lateral bracing... and that was provided by the floor "system".... beams, girders, trusses and slabs. So the final act was the toppling of the core columns absent bracing and the the peeling and toppling of the perimeter.
Columns would only buckle from being overloaded in a process of load redistribution... when a column fails and it's loads are taken up by adjacent columns. This was the likely process going on in the cores as the fires raged... until the tops dropped, driven by heat from fire warping the frame and lowers the capacity of the steel. Slabs did not have the capacity to resist the mass falling and arrest the collapse. Once started every floor would collapse.