Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh yes all 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns buckled simultaneously over 8 stories to allow free fall. That's not hard to believe at all. Remember that the NIST fairy tale is completely unverified, untested and unsupported. Their "evidence" is a computer model whose data is unavailable to independent researchers. Nothing suspicious about that at all.

Incredulity is not a rebuttal. The only way you can refute the story is to demonstrate that columns would not buckle when load paths change and their loads increase beyond their design limit. Yeah, good luck with that.

On top of that, who said anything about simultaneously? Remember the word "progressive"? The failures traveled. (You're not very good at this debate thing, are you?)

Also: If you had studied the actual event, you'd realize that there were already perimeter columns that were damaged by the debris that also touched off the fires. So no, you wouldn't have to have buckled all of them, because some of them had already been compromised by that point. Furthermore, if you would've read my post, you'd realize that only a segment of the building fell at g, not the entire building. So above and beyond that, you wouldn't need all columns in the building to fail. You'd only need the ones in that area to, and again, some of them had already been compromised before the north face descent.

And: The NIST model's data is available to "independent researchers". What do you think the NIST reports are? Furthermore, you contradict yourself when you say that their narrative is "untested and unsupported", then in the very next sentence mention the very modeling that tests and supports their conclusions. On top of that, the findings are verified. Go look up the modifications to the ASCE-7 standard as well as the various NFPA codes that were changed in response to the reports generation. And keep an eye on what the ICC will do; they've already modified international code in response to the first NIST reports and should be in the process of evaluating the WTC 7 report now. What you fail to mention is that their research is validated, and has been done so by the very organizations it affects - building code bodies - as well as the very companies that put it into use (Arup, for example; read up on what they applied from the NIST reports to the Beijing TVCC building, which burned but did not fall because it was built to new standards generated by the NIST research).

Merely making up vapid, unspecific objections is not a refutation. And it's especially hollow in the face of the application of the findings NIST published. I'd say that you need to try harder, but your track record here indicates that this is pretty much the best you've got: Vague statements, zero supporting arguments, no detail. So, good luck in coming up with a rebuttal.

 

[jaydeehess]

Did fire simultaneously remove 8 stories of structure in WTC 7? Why can't you address this?

Why do you keep saying this as if NIST came to this conclusion?
NIST has never said that 8 floors were 'blown out', that is your characterization and yours alone.

Read El Mondo's post and mine from page two.

A buckled or tilted column offers NO vertical support at all.

I also note that despite your repeated claims to have provided a simple analysis all you have done is repeat your own personal incredulity and your conclusions based entirely on that incredulity and claimed it as 'analysis'. The most basic demonstration of this is your constant claims of 8 floors being blown out by fire alone when there is no one on this side of the debate claiming that was the case.

Have you even read the NIST reports on WTC 7? (A simple yes or no to this question will suffice)

 

[jaydeehess]

Incredulity is not a rebuttal. The only way you can refute the story is to demonstrate that columns would not buckle when load paths change and their loads increase beyond their design limit. Yeah, good luck with that.

.................

,,, somehow I do not see cmatrix reading any post that is longer than one paragraph, or 4 sentences.

I deeply suspect that he has not read the WTC 7 report, knows nothing of its construction or what NIST actually put in the report other than what he has read on truther forums.

His understanding of physics is so vague its amusing. Its almost as if his entire knowledge in that feild has been derived from scanning wikipedia pages.

 

[triforcharity]

I've only read Firefight and I found it absolutely first-rate.

I have to agree with BigAl here.
Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman was excellent. But, I have also read Lynn Spencer's book. Both are great reading. Lynn Spencer's book brought me to tears many times.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

,,, somehow I do not see cmatrix reading any post that is longer than one paragraph, or 4 sentences.

I agree.

I deeply suspect that he has not read the WTC 7 report, knows nothing of its construction or what NIST actually put in the report other than what he has read on truther forums.

Oh, I think it's quite obvious that that's the case. He's not even trying to describe the collapse details, he's just firing out myths and misrepresentations.

I do confess, I misremembered details of the collapse myself. I recall that NIST measured the roofline on the north face as it fell, and I also believe that Chandler picked a similar spot, but I forgot that there was a debate about whether there was anything internally connected to that face at all or not. I found some posts from tfk that I need to reread (sorry, don't have the links at this exact moment; those were found last night) where he gives his opinion that internal structures were disconnected from the external walls by the time the collapse started (Tom, if you're reading this, feel free to correct me if I'm not describing that correctly). And indeed, NIST's hypothesis comes out and states that there's very little internal structure connected to the East face before the Penthouse fell. But that's not the same thing as the floors being already severed from the North face, which is what was measured. Anyway, my point in bringing this up is that I think I may have incorrectly described the failure as floors failing "as a unit" because what was actually observed was a part of the the exterior wall falling at near g. That may or may not be the same thing, depending on whether those floors were still attached at that point or not.

And that's part of the reason I composed the posts that I did: It was a little bit of self-punishment for not remembering the specific details of the event . On the other hand, I can say that at least I've read some of them. That's automatically a lap ahead of 90% of trutherdom.

His understanding of physics is so vague its amusing. Its almost as if his entire knowledge in that feild has been derived from scanning wikipedia pages.

Yeah, no kidding. You don't know how close I was to posting "Which conservation law?" and listing them out. ("Was it conservation of energy? Conservation of mass? Conservation of baryon numbers? What??"). He threw out the canard about "(conservation) laws of physics" without understanding a thing about what he was saying; the fires and gravity add energy to the system, so whether or not the system fails depends on calculating whether it would fail given the damage or not. Or in short, it'd have to be calculated. Which he dodged completely, since it's obvious he didn't even think that far through it, let alone do any such calc.

Well.... meh. Once again, it's become obvious he doesn't know what he's saying or doing. He doesn't even know the basic propogation of the collapse, or any individual events beyond the small period of unresisted fall. Heck, notice that he seems to have thought that the entire failed segment was falling at g; not even I made that mistake, and I totally misremembered the details. It's quite apparent that all he's done is study truther posts for his "knowledge".

 

[LashL]

Have you read all or any of the above? If so, which would you recommend? I'm a layman in all the subjects so would like something not overly technical.

I'm edging toward the Shaler DNA story, but would like some input before I take the plunge.

I have Firefight and Touching History and both are excellent. I had not previously heard of Mr. Shaler's book but I think I'll buy that one, too.

 

[Crazytimes]

I want to know what the government used to remove the 8 stories cmatrix. How did they pull off the table cloth trick where they swiped 8 stories from the building to cause the 2.2 seconds of free fall ? How were 8 stories turned to dust so there was no resistance ?

So what on earth could they have used ?

 

[CompusMentus]

Thanks for the info y'all.

I'm plumping for an audiobook version of Lynn Spencers "Touching History". My Ipod is my constant companion and I need to listen to something other than Pink Floyd or Ricky Gervais...

I went to the library today and ordered a copy each of the "Firefight" and the Shaler book. Not the same as owning a copy but I'll get my own off my kids for Christmas hopefully. :=]

Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

I have Firefight and Touching History and both are excellent. I had not previously heard of Mr. Shaler's book but I think I'll buy that one, too.

Dr. Shaler is the man when it comes to the DNA story of 9/11 in New York.

For anyone interested.....

His Bio is very impressive. In an audio interview I listened to the other day he was quite scathing of the role the FBI played in the investigations following 9/11, most enlightening. (Can't find the link sorry)

There's an informative article HERE about the huge complex effort that went into DNA identification at the WTC.

Fascinating.

Compus

 

[dafydd]

Can't do math for sound or flight so you spread lies here. What are you trying to make up this time? Do you make up delusions all the time?

You spread lies for what reason? Hate? Bias against someone? Why do you spread lies?

To get vicarious trolling thrills.Sad,isn't it?

 

[cmatrix]

I think I found your problem. It's the math portion.

The ENTIRE building did not fall at FFA. A PORTION of the North Face did.
The NORTH FACE did not have 58 columns. (see here http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf Page 44 of the PDF ) It actually had 14, IF we count the corner columns.

So, now we are down to 14, possibly 12. I will give you the benefit o the doubt. Now, we know, by the time the exterior of the building began to fall, that the core damage was quite extensive. Meaning, that the shell was basically standing on it's own. Parts near the South face, and SE and SW corners may have still been attached, however unlikely.

Now, we know that this type of design relied on the floor girders to support the inner and outer columns laterally. This is basic engineering 101 (Suprise, I know this, and I am not an engineer) Once these girders are removed, the inner and outer columns are left on their own for support. They cannot do this, and collapse. Does it collapse straight down? No, they fall to either the inside of the building, or the outside. To demonstrate this, stand a 2x4x8 up on its end, to it is sticking up like a tree. Let go. Does it fall straight down? No, of course not. THAT would violate the laws of physics. So, what does it do? It falls in some direction. Left, right, doesn't matter. Now, if we did this, but attached 47 more 2x4x8s onto it, spliced them together, then removed the lateral support, what do you think will happen? One of those splices is almost guaranteed to give out, causing whatever was above it, to fall a different direction.

This is what most likely caused the 2.5 seconds of freefall.

Does this make sense? I don't think I can dumb it down and more than I already have.

Only the North face was in free fall? Where is the evidence for this? All video evidence shows the North, East and West faces falling at the same rate. Also no evidence whatsoever that the South face fell before. It definitely didn't fall slower as it is not seen behind the collapsing building. Most of the columns were intact before the collapse otherwise the building wouldn't have stood. The remaining columns had to be removed continuously floor by floor for 8 stories to attain free fall. Clearly a violation of the LOCOE. Does this make sense? I don't think I can dumb it down and more than I already have.

 

[cmatrix]

Incredulity is not a rebuttal. The only way you can refute the story is to demonstrate that columns would not buckle when load paths change and their loads increase beyond their design limit. Yeah, good luck with that.

On top of that, who said anything about simultaneously? Remember the word "progressive"? The failures traveled. (You're not very good at this debate thing, are you?)

Also: If you had studied the actual event, you'd realize that there were already perimeter columns that were damaged by the debris that also touched off the fires. So no, you wouldn't have to have buckled all of them, because some of them had already been compromised by that point. Furthermore, if you would've read my post, you'd realize that only a segment of the building fell at g, not the entire building. So above and beyond that, you wouldn't need all columns in the building to fail. You'd only need the ones in that area to, and again, some of them had already been compromised before the north face descent.

And: The NIST model's data is available to "independent researchers". What do you think the NIST reports are? Furthermore, you contradict yourself when you say that their narrative is "untested and unsupported", then in the very next sentence mention the very modeling that tests and supports their conclusions. On top of that, the findings are verified. Go look up the modifications to the ASCE-7 standard as well as the various NFPA codes that were changed in response to the reports generation. And keep an eye on what the ICC will do; they've already modified international code in response to the first NIST reports and should be in the process of evaluating the WTC 7 report now. What you fail to mention is that their research is validated, and has been done so by the very organizations it affects - building code bodies - as well as the very companies that put it into use (Arup, for example; read up on what they applied from the NIST reports to the Beijing TVCC building, which burned but did not fall because it was built to new standards generated by the NIST research).

Merely making up vapid, unspecific objections is not a refutation. And it's especially hollow in the face of the application of the findings NIST published. I'd say that you need to try harder, but your track record here indicates that this is pretty much the best you've got: Vague statements, zero supporting arguments, no detail. So, good luck in coming up with a rebuttal.

Here's an IQ test for you: where does the energy come from for a progressive collapse? Remember all the GPE is used up for the free fall.
Thanks for further illustrating the violation of the LOCOE.

Only a segment of the building fell at g? That's complete hand waving BS.

The NIST model raw data is not available to independents and the NIST reports do not contain it. So no one can confirm that NIST did not fudge the model to generate the conclusions they wanted. This is why "evidence" from private models is useless. Where are the peer-reviewed papers that validated the NIST claptrap?

 

[DGM]

Here's an IQ test for you: where does the energy come from for a progressive collapse?

Gravity

 

[T.A.M.]

Here's an IQ test for you: where does the energy come from for a progressive collapse? Remember all the GPE is used up for the free fall.
Thanks for further illustrating the violation of the LOCOE.

Only a segment of the building fell at g? That's complete hand waving BS.

The NIST model raw data is not available to independents and the NIST reports do not contain it. So no one can confirm that NIST did not fudge the model to generate the conclusions they wanted. This is why "evidence" from private models is useless. Where are the peer-reviewed papers that validated the NIST claptrap?

well certainly a run of the mill software developer doesn't make the grade for peer reviewing their report, so anything you have to say about it is really kind of worthless.

As for your sham, fraudulent offer of $10K I would seriously love to see someone take you up on it, and legally hold you accountable for the fee.

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

gravity

rofl

 

[DGM]

rofl

Teach us, oh wise one. What makes things fall down?

 

[T.A.M.]

Teach us, oh wise one. What makes things fall down?

Well if not gravity, it must be the building's Chi.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Here's an IQ test for you: where does the energy come from for a progressive collapse? Remember all the GPE is used up for the free fall.
Thanks for further illustrating the violation of the LOCOE.

Only a segment of the building fell at g? That's complete hand waving BS.

The NIST model raw data is not available to independents and the NIST reports do not contain it. So no one can confirm that NIST did not fudge the model to generate the conclusions they wanted. This is why "evidence" from private models is useless. Where are the peer-reviewed papers that validated the NIST claptrap?

Total nonsense.
Stop complaining about NIST and get your ideas into a paper so your ideas can be labeled by experts in structural engineering. I predict they will call your ideas delusions, and your overall effort nonsense. Want to bet on it?

Where does the energy come from; gravity. If you want to get technical, thousand, maybe millions of parts of WTC7 were at free fall acceleration for various periods during the collapse of WTC7; it is called physics. You failed to make a point.
When did you get your degree in structural engineering?
How long have you practiced engineering?

If you believe everything someone says without question then you're most certainly too gullible to be a skeptic.

I don't believe anything you say; I am too skeptical of your lies and delusions to be gullible. lol

Why will the OP topic person never give away the money? Any rational ideas why someone with delusions like the topic person will never give away, never live up to his promise?

 

[cmatrix]

Total nonsense.
Stop complaining about NIST and get your ideas into a paper so your ideas can be labeled by experts in structural engineering. I predict they will call your ideas delusions, and your overall effort nonsense. Want to bet on it?

Where does the energy come from; gravity. If you want to get technical, thousand, maybe millions of parts of WTC7 were at free fall acceleration for various periods during the collapse of WTC7; it is called physics. You failed to make a point.
When did you get your degree in structural engineering?
How long have you practiced engineering?


I don't believe anything you say; I am too skeptical of your lies and delusions to be gullible. lol

Why will the OP topic person never give away the money? Any rational ideas why someone with delusions like the topic person will never give away, never live up to his promise?

Ah so the energy comes from gravity. But all the gravitational potential energy (gravity to you) is used up for the free fall. Where is this extra magical gravity coming from? The tooth fairy? And I don't understand physics? Yeesh!

 

[DGM]

Ah so the energy comes from gravity. But all the gravitational potential energy (gravity to you) is used up for the free fall.

If this was true it wouldn't hurt when we fall and hit the ground.