Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Java Man said:
Oh so the problem is money. NIST couldn't afford the simulation for this event?
Click to expand...

No, they simply saw that there was no value in simulating the entire collapse.

Such a terrible attack on America and NIST doesn't even have the equivalent of one or two Tomahawk missiles to pay for this simulation.
Click to expand...

A simulation of the collapse after initiation would have proved nothing

Supposing that it really costs that much given present day technology.

Personally I think such a simulation would reveal faults in NIST's report and that is the real cause for the lack of the simulations.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance noted.

The simulation would not fit with what was observed given the initial conditions provided by NIST.
Click to expand...

A large box of toothpicks is spilled on the floor.
You have two choices

A) Spend all your time trying to determine how each toothpick landed exactly where it did.

B) Try to determine how and why the box of toothpick spilled and try to determine how to prevent future spills.

Rational people pick (B). Troofers pick (A)
Click to expand...
 
Animal said:
A large box of toothpicks is spilled on the floor.
You have two choices

A) Spend all your time trying to determine how each toothpick landed exactly where it did.

B) Try to determine how and why the box of toothpick spilled and try to determine how to prevent future spills.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's more like one fourth of the toothpicks slide out for reasons published in a document. Then somehow the whole box is lead to fall due to these displaced toothpicks. The simulation is not to determine how each toothpick landed. Would be nice, but rather irrelevant. What the simulation would do is determine why once a subset of all the toothpicks is displaced inside the box, the whole box falls in the manner and trajectory it is seen to fall. Then it would be interesting to match the initial displacement of said subset of toothpicks with the simulations output and see if such a condition could lead to the simulated toothpick box drop pattern. And if not, why not.
 
Java Man said:
I think there is a good reason. To know how the building will collapse. Will it collapse fully?
Click to expand...

Maybe

Will it stop midway?.
Click to expand...

Maybe

Will it topple over?
Click to expand...

No. Only the willfully ignorant believe that a steel framed igh rise would ever topple over.

I think these are important questions for WTC and other buildings of such great heights.
Click to expand...

What you "think" is meaningless. The fact of the matter is each event, whether it be fire, aircraft impact, suicide truck bomber, meteor, klingon death ray, Godzilla, etc, is a unique event and will be unique to the building and location of the event. Damage will be unique to the event as will be any structural failure. Designing for all such occurrences wold result in everyone living and working in little plastic bubbles. Building codes are written to protect as much as feasible, the life safety of the occupants, and secondly to allow for timely fire fighting. In seismic zones, building are designed to survive earthquakes of the magnitude typically expected in the area, not the most extreme earthquake that has ever happened.
 
Java Man said:
Wrong. It's more like one fourth of the toothpicks slide out for reasons published in a document. Then somehow the whole box is lead to fall due to these displaced toothpicks. The simulation is not to determine how each toothpick landed. Would be nice, but rather irrelevant. What the simulation would do is determine why once a subset of all the toothpicks is displaced inside the box, the whole box falls in the manner and trajectory it is seen to fall. Then it would be interesting to match the initial displacement of said subset of toothpicks with the simulations output and see if such a condition could lead to the simulated toothpick box drop pattern. And if not, why not.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving that troofers pick (A) :rolleyes:
 
Java Man said:
Wrong. It's more like one fourth of the toothpicks slide out for reasons published in a document. Then somehow the whole box is lead to fall due to these displaced toothpicks. The simulation is not to determine how each toothpick landed. Would be nice, but rather irrelevant. What the simulation would do is determine why once a subset of all the toothpicks is displaced inside the box, the whole box falls in the manner and trajectory it is seen to fall. Then it would be interesting to match the initial displacement of said subset of toothpicks with the simulations output and see if such a condition could lead to the simulated toothpick box drop pattern. And if not, why not.
Click to expand...

Well, then go do it. The rest of the world understands why it's irrelevant.
 
Java Man said:
So a steel structure could not fall like this?

http://constructionknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/china_apt_collapse.jpg?w=500&h=326

Why not?
Click to expand...

Because a steel tower is not designed like a reinforced concrete building.

Reinforced concrete buildings are stiff and typically monolithic. The entire structure is tied together through reinforcement. (Usually pre-tensioned or post-tensioned to reduce the amount of concrete required)

Steel framed towers are designed to flex. The greatest force acting on a high rise tower is not gravity, it is the lateral load from winds. Steel towers are basically designed as a very large cantilever. In order for a steel framed tower to topple, the center of its mass would have to move far beyond the point where the structure would fail due to gravity loads.
 
Animal said:
Because a steel tower is not designed like a reinforced concrete building.

Reinforced concrete buildings are stiff and typically monolithic. The entire structure is tied together through reinforcement. (Usually pre-tensioned or post-tensioned to reduce the amount of concrete required)

Steel framed towers are designed to flex. The greatest force acting on a high rise tower is not gravity, it is the lateral load from winds. Steel towers are basically designed as a very large cantilever. In order for a steel framed tower to topple, the center of its mass would have to move far beyond the point where the structure would fail due to gravity loads.
Click to expand...

So according to you this image of a 21 story toppled steel structure is fake.

http://www.cnnexpansion.com/photos/...acero-de-21-niveles.2008-09-17.9802883069.jpg

BTW, are steel structures more aerodynamic than concrete? Or why do you say they are more affected by lateral load from winds?
 
Christopher7 said:
He said it was steel because it's bloody obvious.
Click to expand...

Say it 100 more times and it becomes troo!

Has Chris identified the molten metal pics yet? No?! Gee I am shocked. I have seen this test a couple dozen times and truthers run from it like vampires from the sun. Funny considering its so "obvious".
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Until you arrive at "If there wasn't something to it you wouldn't still be talking about it" thereby making the argument itself proof of the argument.
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif

Yes - which puts another circle on the circle.
 
Animal said:
...A large box of toothpicks is spilled on the floor.
You have two choices

A) Spend all your time trying to determine how each toothpick landed exactly where it did.

B) Try to determine how and why the box of toothpick spilled and try to determine how to prevent future spills.

Rational people pick (B). Troofers pick (A)
Click to expand...
Well identified. I like the metaphor.

And you got proof positive feedback in the very next post.
clap.gif

Animal said:
Thanks for proving that troofers pick (A) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Java Man said:
So according to you this image of a 21 story toppled steel structure is fake.

http://www.cnnexpansion.com/photos/...acero-de-21-niveles.2008-09-17.9802883069.jpg
Click to expand...

A 21 story building is not in the same ballpark as a modern high rise. (Height to footprint ratio) And a earthquake creates a very large lateral force at its base. Troofers do like to compare apples to oranges and pretend that it means something.

BTW, are steel structures more aerodynamic than concrete? Or why do you say they are more affected by lateral load from winds?
Click to expand...

<sigh> What I said was "The greatest force acting on a high rise tower is not gravity, it is the lateral load from winds." Rather lame (and dishonest) attempt to rephrase what I said, you can pick up your consolation prizes your way out.
 
cicorp said:
The FBI should question those who:
* had the power to carry it out: equipment, black ops teams, money, technology
* had the power to cover it up: creating a plausible cover story, set up group of patsy's, control over mass media
* resisted an investigation
* controlled the investigation
* refused to testify under oath
* refused to testify in public
* refused to testify alone
* benefited from 9/11 - cui bono
* changed their story about 9/11
* lied about other things in their lives

Even if the Commission was just asked to analyze policies, Senator Max Cleland quit. How much more unfair would it be as a criminal investigation.

We didn't get a real criminal investigation, and we need one. The FBI has not indicted OBL for 9/11. Only the Bush Administration did and mass media got on the band wagon.

The best "evidence" they have are water boarded witnesses who would confess to killing Abraham Lincoln, and a closed military trial to be held in Guantanamo so the press can be controlled. That's not American.
Click to expand...

Why would they do any of this after they've solved the crime?
 
Java Man said:
Really? I'd swear I'm getting hammered for not posting my theory. At least that's what I understand dafydd keeps saying. So tell me where did you read that? Where you in my house without my knowledge? Are you hacking into my laptop? Or is this just a typical kneejerk reaction on your part and you're assuming that is what I said.

dafydd, see what I mean by the importance of not publishing my theory yet? Otherwise we'd end up in infinite spin cycles with folks like Tom here who believes I said something which I haven't. With your help dafydd I now don't have to spend endless hours going back to my posts and reminding people I didn't say such a thing.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Never mind.
 
grandmastershek said:
Say it 100 more times and it becomes troo!

Has Chris identified the molten metal pics yet? No?! Gee I am shocked. I have seen this test a couple dozen times and truthers run from it like vampires from the sun. Funny considering its so "obvious".
Click to expand...


I once did that with a cropped picture of the sun. Truther thought it was orange juice...
 
Animal said:
A 21 story building is not in the same ballpark as a modern high rise. (Height to footprint ratio) And a earthquake creates a very large lateral force at its base. Troofers do like to compare apples to oranges and pretend that it means something.
Click to expand...
[nitpick]
That one was not an earthquake, The Chinese apartment complex fell over because of a poorly designed foundation with equally poor research on the soil conditions on which the apartment was built. One of the reasons why it stayed relatively intact when it toppled over is exactly as you elaborated before, that reinforced concrete buildings tend to be more monolithic. [/nitpick]
The rest is on the money

This happened in 2009: http://www.archdaily.com/27245/building-collapse-in-shanghai/


Java man, I don't think I need a theory from you. You've just shown the same poor research demonstration as the charlatans in Gage's group. For all of the scathing comments daffyd kept leaving against you, he's got a great point; you didn't even bother to crosscheck your assumptions before making a call on this example. If you're fudging up on something this simple I don't think there's much justification to consider you for credibility.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom