Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[carlitos]

I think that such discussions might be a better fit for a different sub forum....

femr2 has often protested that he has no "conspiracy theory" to discuss, yet he never takes up offers to start topics in the science sub-forum for topics like video tracing or sound engineering. Draw your own conclusions.

That's all well and good, but...

1. Truthers are rarely corrected for using "free fall speed," except when such usage occurs in the course of lecturing others on their lack of knowledge of the laws of physics (thus making authority the issue of discussion), or when it's actually ambiguous whether they actually mean speed or acceleration, which must be resolved in order to address a question or issue. Because otherwise, we know what they mean so it is pointless to raise the issue.

2. No one claimed that gravity is equal to energy. That anyone claimed that is a fabrication of femr2's. What was claimed is that "gravity" is a reasonable and clear enough answer to the question that was asked, which is where the energy to destroy the buildings "came from."

If asked where the energy to power my computer "comes from" I might, depending on context, answer "the outlet on the wall over there," "PECO" (the local power company), or "natural gas." Neither outlets, power companies, nor hydrocarbon gases are "equal to energy" or even "forms of energy" (natural gas is often loosely described as a "kind of energy" but that is not technically correct) but they are correct and valid answers to the question asked. Where does the power for my grandfather clock "come from"? "Gravity," "the weights," or "my arm when I wind it every week" are all reasonable and correct answers; none is equal to energy.

The trick femr2 has pulled on you, that you have fallen for, is his interpreting a valid but technically imprecise answer to reasonable but imprecisely and non-technically worded question (that is, where did the energy of a certain process "come from"?) as if it were intended as a technically precise but wrong answer to a different and more technically precise question that was not asked, such as "what exact form of energy powered the fracturing and comminution of the structural materials of the collapsing towers?"

Respectfully,
Myriad

femr2, congratulations on getting something right.

 

[Animal]

Actually, you are right about that part. In fact, they couldn't buckle at all but we'll get to that in a minute.

Thank you for pressing the issue. I like to "test drive" my ideas here. If there is a problem, someone will find it.

My original point is correct. They have the girder falling both ways but considering that they applied 4 hours of heat accumulation in 1.5 seconds, it all happened in that 1.5 seconds. What was I thinking? Oh yea, the real world.

Look at the graphic on pg 354. It shows the girder being pushed to the west at column 79 but not far enough to fail. And it does not mention the walk off described in 1A pg 22. But that is just one of many problems.

1) NIST lied about there being no shear studs on the girder. See: "NIST fraud - WTC 7 Shear Studs" near the bottom of the page:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Recently, someone posted the original fabrication and construction aspects which show shear studs on the girders.
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Salvarinas-1986.pdf

[qimg]http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8011/shearstudsonkeygirdercr.jpg[/qimg]

There is no reason not to make the girders composite with the slab.

2) Applying 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds is grossly unrealistic. This does not allow for heat dissipation or sagging which would counteract lineal expansion.

The fire only burned for 20 to 30 minutes in any location. There would be some pre heating because the area above the dropped ceiling was open [for duct work, electrical conduit, cables and the like] but they do not say how they calculated the "4 hours of heating".

3) They heated the entire area in that 1.5 seconds. The fire burned thru that area, moving from the south to the north, over a period of about one and one half to two hours.

4) They heated the beams but not the slab which is not what happens in the real world and gives an unrealistic result. [The length of the beam only matters in overall expansion. The distance between the studs determines the amount of stress they receive.]

5) They did not account for the short beam [with shear studs] on the west side of the girder which would have provided resistance.

6) They did not include the 3 short beams between the northmost beam and the north wall or the one on the other side. These would have prevented the northmost floor beam from buckling.

7) They say "Buckling of other floor beams followed" but the beams at the column 79 end had no axial restraint.

8) Even at 600^oC the beams would not expand enough to push the girder off its seat.

9) The fire that supposedly caused the thermal expansion had gone out over one half hour before the collapse.

The whole set of parameters are unrealistic and based on false data.

In short the floor 13 collapse due to thermal expansion hypothesis is crap on a crumpet.

Repeating the same proven false claims again and again will not make them come true

 

[tsig]

There was no trick pulled on me....I read through the posts myself and agreed with femr2 that a few people were using terms incorrectly.

Things like force, energy, and work are often misued terms just like gravitational potential and gravitational potential energy are often misused terms.

The point is that some of us debunkers get pedantic about the usage of terms when they are incorrectly used by truthers......our reaction should be the same if a debunker does something similar.

Since some get pedantic you get pedantic to prove the point?

 

[Toke]

Hmm, howsabout...

Concrete Crush Energy = 3.75E+05/x J/Kg

Where x = scale of crush in microns.


What were you after exactly ?

I were wondering how your continuous semantics blathering relates to 9/11?

 

[femr2]

[femr2] never takes up offers to start topics in the science sub-forum for topics like video tracing or sound engineering.

I've only ever started one topic, WTC 2 Progressive Tilt.

All my other posting has been in pre-existing threads.

Draw your own conclusions.

Make assumptions you mean. Never a great idea.

 

[dafydd]

It appears to me that femr2's full theory about 9/11 boils down to "I, femr2, am more intelligent, perceptive and diligent than NIST, and have discovered many details of the WTC7 collapse that NIST failed to discover." It's a step back from Major Tom's approach, which is to highlight insignificant details of the WTC collapses, assert that they are incompatible with models of the collapse which are too coarse to predict or rule out the aforementioned details, and further assert that these details therefore favour a different model which is no better able to predict the fine details but disagrees fundamentally with all the major observations. Femr2 appears to have seen some of the problems with parts 2 and 3 of this approach, and so is focussing exclusively on part 1.

Dave

I am not talking about the collapse,rather about how it was done,the full picture. Truthers always focus on one insignificant part of the jigsaw puzzle,and nitpick it till the cows come home. I want to know from a truther who thought of the conspiracy,how was the building rigged etc. No truther has ever had the guts to furnish me with a full theory. Femr2 can post pictures with squiggly lines on them an meaningless graphs and demostrate his ignorance of physics until doomsaday but that does not tell me why the official story is wrong.

 

[dafydd]

I have asked femr2 to give us his full theory concerning the events of 911,but have received no reply. No truther here has ever given us a full theory. All we get from them is nitpicking about tiny details. None of them know anything about physics or engineering,it's pathetic to behold sometimes. What about your version of 911 femr2. Be a brave warrior for truth.

Care to address this femr2? Or do you have no full theory,as I suspect.

 

[carlitos]

Care to address this femr2?

Intentional ambiguity is a control mechanism used by passive-aggressive people to manipulate others. I've finally come to realize that this is a lot of the truther MO. At this point, there is little to do but point and laugh at the intentional impotence of what's left -- the dregs of a failed movement.

 

[newton3376]

Since some get pedantic you get pedantic to prove the point?

I might have to get pedantic to answer this....

 

[dafydd]

Umm... NIST admitted that WTC fell at free fall acceleration for 2.4 or 2.5 seconds, did it not?

Can you convert 2.4 seconds of free fall acceleration with an initial velocity of 0 m/s??

I'll help you out... 93 feet. 2.5 seconds is 100 feet.

9 to 10 floors. Support COLUMNS, all the way around, symmetrically, failing, almost instantaneously.

What if you don't know what you're talking about.

Explain what happened.

ALL the support Columns got hot. How hot did they get?? REALLY?! ALL of them?

Did they start to bend? Did the floors start to buckle? Why wouldn't the support Columns remain standing?

If only one corner column got hot "enough", as per NIST's report, then why would they ALL fail instantaneously?


I see a whole bunch above, but not a single thing that refers to 2.4 or 2.5 seconds of uniform, free fall acceleration!!! Which translates to 90 to 100 feet of ALL support Columns just disappearing. Not getting weak -- gradually or rapidly; they just vanished.

Was that the impression you got? Impressive.

Well, this was in an entirely new thread, but it was merged here to obfuscate the crux of this issue -- ALL support COLUMNS not doing their job at the exact same time, for 9 to 10 floors, at least... and THEN reaching a kind of terminal velocity.

You missed the 2.4 seconds, as well, eh?

That's just beautiful. Can you convert that to words?

How hot did those support Columns get?

How hot would each of the Columns need to get to reach a point where they disintegrate and offer no support at all??

Where the metals in the Columns not able to resist such temperatures?

Do you have a full theory? Femr2 seems unwilling to reply.

 

[dafydd]

While I agree with what you are saying......that is a seperate issue.

No,look at the title of this thread.

 

[NoahFence]

Was that the impression you got? Impressive.

Why then do truthers keep slamming home the point that WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane?

You either think that every building that collapsed has done so because of an aircraft impact or you don't.

If you don't then you need to concede that WTC 7 not being hit by a plane is irrelevant.

 

[dafydd]

Why then do truthers keep slamming home the point that WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane?

You either think that every building that collapsed has done so because of an aircraft impact or you don't.

If you don't then you need to concede that WTC 7 not being hit by a plane is irrelevant.

Is femr2 a no planer? I didn't know he was that far gone.

 

[Toke]

Is femr2 a no planer? I didn't know he was that far gone.

It is hard to tell what he is, I kind of doubt he knows himself.

 

[NoahFence]

Nah, it was grndslm, complaining that an airplane didn't hit WTC 7, therefore it shouldn't have collapsed.

I was wondering if he was under the impression that all building collapses are due to aircraft impacts.

 

[dafydd]

It is hard to tell what he is, I kind of doubt he knows himself.

All he seems to do is nitpick about gravity and ejected debris. Were there planes or not femr2? Give us the benefit of your extensive knowledge.

 

[dafydd]

Nah, it was grndslm, complaining that an airplane didn't hit WTC 7, therefore it shouldn't have collapsed.

I was wondering if he was under the impression that all building collapses are due to aircraft impacts.

So grdslm,what did I see crashing into the towers?

 

[femr2]

Femr2 can post pictures with squiggly lines on them an[d] meaningless graphs and demostrate his ignorance of physics until doomsaday

1) Just because you are not capable of understanding the meaning, implications and merit of what you term *pictures with squiggly lines on them an[d] meaningless graphs* does not mean they are without meaning, implication or merit.

2) The recent discussion of simplistic physical term usage has not only highlighted that I am most certainly not ignorant of the arena (though I would certainly not profess to be all-knowing), but has highlighted that many of those who make such accusations, such as yourself, are, to put it mildly, more than a little lacking in the very areas they are asserting upon. Quite ironic really.


I'm afraid that you make your level of technical understanding very clear by the mode of your dialogue, and I have neither interest nor intention of facilitating your continnual demands for me to provide you with general information outside the bounds of the specific area I comment upon, especially personal information. I have made my reasons for spending time looking at the features I do very clear in numerous discussions within this forum, and have absolutely zero intention of wasting my time repeating it to every lazy and rude member of this forum who is obsessed with *twoofer baiting*.

You've said on several occasions that I have made mistakes, and yet when challenged to state what you think the issue actually is you have repeatedly dodged the question and changed the subject. Poor.

 

[Christopher7]

So after the fire on floor 12 was out, the damage was magically fixed?

No, according to NIST, the collapse began when the thermal expansion pushed the girder between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor off its seat.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 53 [pdf pg 95][/FONT]
The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.

NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64]
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

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

 

[beachnut]

1) Just because you are not capable of understanding the meaning, implications and merit.... Poor.

10 years of nonsense on 911 (you get extra credit for posting wiggly gifs), and the best you have is youtube videos titled "Demolition". 911 truth is not capable of understanding 911. The CD claims are as crazy as the beam weapon, thermite, and nukes. What frame of reference did you pick and when will you present your work?

OMG, you posted the wiggle lies on your study with no goal, save asking questions. What was the point and how does it support your CD claims, your Demolition claims?

NIST was wrong, fire did not do it? No, NIST is right fire did it. When will you publish your work? Never? Next Week? In 20 years when it complete? You study 0.01 percent of the collapse of WTC7 and pronounce NIST is wrong. Why do want-to-be engineers attack NIST when all they have to do is publish their work and provide evidence for their claims, in your case a covert delusion of "Demolition".
Did you fix the 4g and 2g discontinuity on your data for 175?