Care to Comment

[Tony Szamboti]

Stop dodging. I'm asking you to prove that there was insufficient tilt for the impacts to be distributed over time. If all achimspok has proven is that the columns needn't have missed one another, then that's irrelevant.



Then you're making another appeal to perfection. Physical models don't scale correctly.



Either you're lying, they're humouring the nutter they have to work with whether they like it or not, or you don't work with any competent engineers.

Dave

There was not enough tilt for the impacts to be distributed over time and allow the upper section to accelerate at 70% of gravitational acceleration. I will get back with figures on it.

I had to laugh at your claim that I am appealing to perfection with my point that the lack of deceleration of the north face of WTC 1 seems to pour cold water on your separate impacts distributed over time eliminates the jolt theory.

As far as modeling is concerned, it is plenty possible, and is done for buildings subjected to earthquakes all the time. The reality here is that you can't repeat the observations because it could not happen the way you say it did. You just won't admit that and have to dance around saying people are asking too much.

You really show your willingness to take liberties by saying my engineering friends are humouring anyone or that I am lying. The reality is that the present explanations for these collapses are far from sufficient and anyone qualified who looks into it realizes that.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm going to go with option "B." Seen it many times.

He's also been asked repeatedly to name these believing individuals so we can see if it's anyone who might have a clue, but he always declines. Which strikes me as odd, given his insistence to avoid anonymity. The only supporters we can positively identify are the AE911T morons.

Ryan, I am wondering when you are going to publicly admit that the NIST values for both the factor of safety of the core columns and the amount of tilt that you used in our debate were incorrect.

You repeatedly claimed I was wrong about the factor of safety of the core being 3.00 to 1 since that wasn't the value NIST gave. I have shown that it was indeed 3.00 to 1 using the actual in-service loads and that the reason NIST's values are lower is that they used the worst case design loads, even though they weren't the loads being experienced during the failures.

You also used the NIST assertion that the tilt was 8 degrees in WTC 1 when the hinge on the north face let go. It has now been aptly shown that the hinge on the north face let go at around 1 degree of tilt.

You need to admit you were in error even if you were using what you may have believed to be accurate figures from NIST at the time.

 

[Baylor]

Watch the movie 911 Mysteries to see the CBS clip of FEMA contract employee Tom Kenney telling Dan Rather about FEMA arriving in Lower Manhattan the night before Sept. 11, 2001, ostensibly for a bio-terror drill to be held on Sept. 12, 2001.

The CBS clip is played between 52 and 53 minutes into the film.

On a side note, it is interesting how there seemed to be a lot of contract employees and volunteers involved in the investigation. Geez, why would that be?

The guy was in MA on 9/10/01. His wife corroborated. He arrived in NY the night of 9/11. He got the days of the week mixed up, something his friends and family say he's prone do to, especially after working 48 hours under stressful conditions without a break.

 

[Newtons Bit]

As far as modeling is concerned, it is plenty possible, and is done for buildings subjected to earthquakes all the time.

Bull. The only physical models that is done for buildings subject to earthquakes are tests of individual components (such as buckling restrained braced frames or capacities of base isolators), full-scale tests where researchers building an entire building on a shake table and load it,full-scale tests of the constructed building in-situ to determine physical characteristics such as the natural frequency and non-scale models to determine general physical principles. The International Building Code, which is adopted pretty much everywhere in the USA, requires full-scale tests to justify systems that lack ICC or ICBO reports detailing full-scale tests.

Computer models of buildings for earthquakes typically leave out everything but the designated seismic resisting lateral system. We engineers typically leave out everything that isn't part of the load path that we're interesting in.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The guy was in MA on 9/10/01. His wife corroborated. He arrived in NY the night of 9/11. He got the days of the week mixed up, something his friends and family say he's prone do to, especially after working 48 hours under stressful conditions with a break.

No problem, he and his wife and the others can tell that to the investigators, if 911 is ever investigated properly. I would think he would have a little more proof than whether or not his wife said so though. I am not accusing Tom Kenney of wrongdoing but think the fact that there may be evidence of FEMA appointees of the Bush administration being conveniently on the spot to immediately control the investigation should be investigated.

I think you meant to say "after working 48 hours under stressful conditions without a break".

By the way, FEMA contract employee Tom Kenney was interviewed by Dan Rather of CBS News on Sept. 12, 2001. If he had been working 48 hours without a break in NYC that has him there by Sept. 10, 2001. Is this something you might have gotten wrong?

 

[Telltale Tom]

Dear Tony,

I would be happy to explain to you how I calculated the 3.5 feet, which is not without its own challenges; but would you be so kind as to explain, how in your model, the buckling columns manage to avoid missing the bar joists? What exactly happens to that buckled column.? Or is that where you need the explosives?

If you agree I am happy to go first.!

 

[fess]

Let me state first of all. I am not a structural engineer, electrical engineer, or any other kind of engineer for that matter. However, not being an engineer does not stop me from wondering why we are posting up all sorts of equations and statements of physics about CD before we have even answered some very basic questions. For instance:

What type of explosives, and how much of said explosives would be necessary to destroy the critical support members in the towers to insure global collapse?

How were the explosives transported into the towers and to the various areas of the towers where these critical members were located?

How many people would have to be involved in the operation?

How did these people gain access to the inaccessible areas where these explosives were to be planted? Some of these areas and columns were in close proximity to high speed elevators… were the not?

How were all of these operations carried out without raising any suspicion of the thousands of individuals working in the towers on any given day?

How was the unavoidable boom… boom… boom… boom of a CD masked so that no one would hear it?

These and other questions have been asked before, and I have yet seen any verifiable answer that covers the above questions, especially from the “truther” side.

 

[Baylor]

No problem, he and his wife and the others can tell that to the investigators, if 911 is ever investigated properly. I would think he would have a little more proof than whether or not his wife said so though. I am not accusing Tom Kenney of wrongdoing but think the fact that there may be evidence of FEMA appointees of the Bush administration being conveniently on the spot to immediately control the investigation should be investigated.

I think you meant to say "after working 48 hours under stressful conditions without a break".

By the way, FEMA contract employee Tom Kenney was interviewed by Dan Rather of CBS News on Sept. 12, 2001. If he had been working 48 hours without a break in NYC that has him there by Sept. 10, 2001. Is this something you might have gotten wrong?

I'm going on memory. I haven't heard this crap peddled in about two years. He was interviewed later in the week, either on Wednesday or Thursday. I guess it was Wednesday night so it'd be closer to the 24-36 hour range without a break.

 

[Baylor]

What type of explosives, and how much of said explosives would be necessary to destroy the critical support members in the towers to insure global collapse?

Not that any truther is interested, but I'll give this one a shot. RDX and HMX are about the only two candidates. In order to cut one box column, I think you'd need to place four linear shaped charges -- two on top, two on bottom--to successfully sever the column. A typical 'I-beam' has two placed on it so I figure a box column would take twice as many. This is, of course, after it's been 'pre-burned'. This screencap shows how much a linear shaped charge can cut--only about 1.5".

 

[Telltale Tom]

Hi Fess,
You should not hold back in this forum, based on your expertise. You will find that nobody else does. Let me answer your questions in bold below:

Let me state first of all. I am not a structural engineer, electrical engineer, or any other kind of engineer for that matter. However, not being an engineer does not stop me from wondering why we are posting up all sorts of equations and statements of physics about CD before we have even answered some very basic questions. For instance:

What type of explosives, and how much of said explosives would be necessary to destroy the critical support members in the towers to insure global collapse?
Ok assume that the planes took out about 80 columns: so we either had fire proof explosives at the impact level to take out the remainder. Or we had something that could take out 80 or more columns at every level below that.

How were the explosives transported into the towers and to the various areas of the towers where these critical members were located?
Well our theory at ae911truth is that it went up the elevators. I am not very happy with that theory because there are 47 columns in the core and in WTC1 there are only 11 columns accessible from 15 shafts at the impact level, and in WTC2 there are 14 accessible columns from 26 lift shafts.
So I think that we should really believe that the explosives must have been sneaked into the ceiling void and I am sure a team of Army midgets could have done it in 6 months...

How many people would have to be involved in the operation?
Say one day to remove the fire protection, one day to cut the column and one day to place explosives, by a team of 3... without any damage to the lightweight ceiling and occupied spaces below. So say 50% of columns at 50% levels = 55x47x3x.5x.5 = 5.3 man years per tower. So a team of 60 could do it in 90 days per tower.

How did these people gain access to the inaccessible areas where these explosives were to be planted? Through the ceiling void Some of these areas and columns were in close proximity to high speed elevators… were the not? Yes but these were the easy ones.. most of the columns were not accessible without removing ceilings

How were all of these operations carried out without raising any suspicion of the thousands of individuals working in the towers on any given day? The office was full of bankers who were concentrating on making money and they did not notice the burning small in the morning or the dust around them

How was the unavoidable boom… boom… boom… boom of a CD masked so that no one would hear it? Well that's where the super-thermite comes into play. As Richard Gage said on National Geographic last year""... we don't know what it looks like or how it was detonated but we are sure it was the main cause of the CD

These and other questions have been asked before, and I have yet seen any verifiable answer that covers the above questions, especially from the “truther” side.

Now that you have the answers, you can see where we are coming from. Please join us. We are sure that ae911truth can do a better investigation of 9/11 than these Nist people, and we will make a much better video, thats for sure.

Any other explanations that we can help you with?

 

[TexasJack]

Fire proof explosives, now that's good stuff.

 

[fess]

Telltale Tom;
Thanks for your satirical answers to my questions… they were satirical, weren’t they?
I guess this part of my post is still correct; “and I have yet seen any verifiable answer that covers the above questions, especially from the “truther” side.”

 

[Dave Rogers]

There was not enough tilt for the impacts to be distributed over time and allow the upper section to accelerate at 70% of gravitational acceleration. I will get back with figures on it.

If you think the tilt has any effect on the average acceleration, then you have no idea what you're talking about. The average rate of energy absorption is independent of tilt. Your point has always been related to the instantaneous acceleration, so talking about 0.7G is moving the goalposts.

I had to laugh at your claim that I am appealing to perfection with my point that the lack of deceleration of the north face of WTC 1 seems to pour cold water on your separate impacts distributed over time eliminates the jolt theory.

Yes, because that's much easier than actually thinking about it. You're asserting that every broken column end of the upper part of the north face of WTC1 struck the corresponding broken end of the lower part simultaneously, that the entire north face was sufficiently rigid to respond as a single block to that impact, and that the remainder of the structure was sufficiently elastic not to affect the motion of the north face at all. You're simultaneously demanding perfect impact, perfect rigidity and perfect elasticity. It's not just an appeal to perfection, it's a self-contradictory appeal to perfection.

But keep on laughing at every objection to your theories. That's much easier than actually addressing them, and it'll make it absolutely certain that nobody will listen to you beyond the embarrassed feigning of agreement that they know will make you calm down and go away quietly.

Dave

 

[Telltale Tom]

Telltale Tom;
Thanks for your satirical answers to my questions… they were satirical, weren’t they?
I guess this part of my post is still correct; “and I have yet seen any verifiable answer that covers the above questions, especially from the “truther” side.”

No, you are absolutely wrong, I am not being satirical. I am just an honest truther

My posts simply present the logical implications of the "irrefutable" evidence presented on our ae911truth web site.

So you will note that there is nothing in my response that is inconsistent with our message. Although perhaps I go into more detail than we normally do

 

[TruthersLie]

I must have missed this proof. Could you repost it here? It seems to disagree with my own observation that the upper block tilted about 2º before the top edge had descended more than a quarter of a storey height. It's easy to make unsupported assertions that something has been proven; nobody round here will take them seriously.



Because there were multiple impacts. At no point does the force on the upper block exceed the downward force of gravity, so at no point is there any deceleration.



I, on the other hand, find it incredible that you're incapable of visulaising complexity. There is no reason why any individual impact must be simultaneous with any other individual impact. You're demanding that the upper block fell precisely vertically, and that every column buckled in precisely the same manner over precisely the same length, in order to maintain your fantasy that there should have been a single impact. Real life isn't that convenient.

Dave

Are we still on the "missing jolt" theory?

OMG.

Tony, your own data shows there were seperate and distinct jolts... the graph has been posted numerous times for you...

 

[jammonius]

Oh can I?

If a building is standing 1000 feet in the air, please describe how *********** gravity impacts a pool ball.

Worthless. The first truther who acknowledges that Newton's laws apply in a closed system gets a *********** cookie. Or to put it another way, calculate the freaking potential energy of a ten ton steel beam placed 1000 feet in the air.

Idiots.

If there is a point you want to make, would you please make it. You have not refuted the evidence demonstrated in the 10min video at all. You are putting burden on, as you call it, "first truther" to do something FOR you. To prove something TO you.

You are not Torquemada conducting an inquisition.

The NIST report and the Basant claims are shown to be false and fraudulent in the video and experimental data is used in the context of certain laws of physics.

You have not refuted the video, or even attempted refutation.

Your resort to emotional expression and to a demand for proof is absurd, shoddy and easily identifiable as an utter failure in refutation.

Do better.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Apparently the phrases that described nano-thermite as tailorable and allowing for impulse management didn't mean much to you.

Oh well, some people just don't see the forest for the trees.

You're still at this thermite stuff? Don't realize that this makes you a nut. You might as well be saying there were no planes, or space rays distintigrated the WTC, or nuclear bombs blew it up.

Honestly, I guess you've given up on being taken seriously.

Jammi, why don't you take on Tony on this thermite stuff.

 

[jammonius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s&feature=player_embedded

was sent to me recently. Has anyone else commented on this latest video?

Rgrds=Ross

Well done video. Spendid topic.

 

[jammonius]

Oh holy crap. The many errors are so easy to spot!

The most important being: they completely ignore the constant acceleration of gravity. Since the collapses were all slower than free-fall (i.e.: acceleration < g), that means there was a resisting force that decelrated the collapse. Indeed, the momentum lost du to inelastic collisions of falling upper block with resting lower block is the main reason for this upward force and HAS been properly taken into account by everybody who ever modelled the collapse.

The experiments conducted are cute and good enough to convince me that upward and downward crushing occur simultaneously. I am not at all convinced that this refutes Bazant, and it has nothing to do with speed of collapse.

The videos of failed demolitions are quite irrelevant as we are shown reinforced concrete structures that ar much much smaller and of entirely different designs and design loads that the WTC skyscrapers.

It is very telling that they reference the finding of eutectic iron and iron-rich microspheres to FEMA and the USGS, but fail to identify Jones, Harriet ed.al. as "finders" of "high explosive active nano thermite".

At 9:06: "Perhaps there are experiments that support the official hypothesis ... but I cannot think of one" -> HAHAHA yeah, that's the problem with twoofers: There is so much that they are simply unable to think.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. You do not refute, but you do have an opinion, and you are entitled to it.

The video demonstrates the NIST and Bazant assertions and methodologies were fraudulent. As such, the video is well done and serves as a concise refutation of both NIST and Bazant.

The WTC complex could not have self-annihilated itself solely on the basis of weak gravity. A destructive force is clearly evident.

 

[jammonius]

You need gravity explained to you?

Priceless!

Gravity is an incredibly weak force and could not have accounted for the destruction of the lower 80 floors of the the South Tower and the lower 95 floors of the North by the small fraction of floors above them. Further, the lower floors SUPPORTED the upper ones by means of successively thicker steel beams, both perimeter and core, from the ground up, not the other way around.

The claim the weak force of gravity is at work in, and responsible for, the annihilation of the WTC is stupid, unproven; and, in the case of NIST, not even attempted as a demonstrated claim.

The video that informs this thread is clear, concise and a valuable piece of research information.