Debunk This

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I may have been misconstruing it, but I also thought it fell faster than free-fall in vacuum because of the pressure differences created by the explosions.

Pressure differences... in a vacuum...

Now that's gold.

 

[TraitorBasher]

It's not his opinions that I value most. It's the application of his knowledge.

Glad to hear that you've read his papers. Do you have any major disagreements with them?

No I dont have any problems with them. I also agree that more study needs to be done, rather than suppressed. I agree with his view on tactics at this forum.

 

[HyJinX]

No I dont have any problems with them. I also agree that more study needs to be done, rather than suppressed. I agree with his view on tactics at this forum.

So you have a personal issue with the way things are discussed here...not the content of the discussion? Correct?

If you don't like it...go. If you have something valuable to add...then by all means...add it.

 

[apathoid]

Flight 175 hit the south side, and the bowing was at the northeast, where debris was piled up and the fires were the worst.

Ah, it was the adjacent side, not the opposite(when I wrote opposite above I didn't mean opposite side of the facade, I meant the other side of the Tower. Just to clarify ). Thanks.




Happy B-day AW!!

 

[Gravy]

No I dont have any problems with them. I also agree that more study needs to be done, rather than suppressed. I agree with his view on tactics at this forum.

After Frank Greening (Apollo 20)'s initial tirade about lurking here and seeing intolerance of differing views, I asked him if he could point to a conspiracist claim that we dismissed without consideration or cause.

He couldn't. Can you?

 

[TraitorBasher]

After Frank Greening (Apollo 20)'s initial tirade about lurking here and seeing intolerance of differing views, I asked him if he could point to a conspiracist claim that we dismissed without consideration or cause.

He couldn't. Can you?

He didnt talk about intolerance. Here is what he actually said

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

He is absolutely right. Within a few posts of his opening post he was trold to submit his theory for peer review and also told that 99.9999% of the worlds structural engineers agree with the NIST report.

 

[HyJinX]

He didnt talk about intolerance. Here is what he actually said



He is absolutely right. Within a few posts of his opening post he was trold to submit his theory for peer review and also told that 99.9999% of the worlds structural engineers agree with the NIST report.

Your point being?

 

[HyJinX]

He didnt talk about intolerance. Here is what he actually said



He is absolutely right. Within a few posts of his opening post he was trold to submit his theory for peer review and also told that 99.9999% of the worlds structural engineers agree with the NIST report.

Are you going to ever go back to the "moon hoax" thread to answer the questions brought forth to you...or are you just going to skip that and move on?

 

[Loss Leader]

Seriously, you will never find a simple, all-encompassing safety factor for the towers because one doesn't exist. To build on Architect's explanation, a structure like the towers is too complicated to have such a simple factor.

That's absolute nonsense. I happen to have come into possession of a confidential email sent by a highly placed employee at Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson to Minoru Yamasaki on June 31, 1968 stating:

We have calculated the safety factor of Tower One at 9.2 milicochranes per foot pound. However, the safety factor of Tower Two is only 2.6 and one should at all costs avoid flying an as-yet uninvented jetliner into it at full speed or, actually, even kicking it particularly hard.​

So you, PVT, and Architect and Agent Roberts can consider yourselves DEBUNKED!

 

[qarnos]

That's absolute nonsense. I happen to have come into possession of a confidential email sent by a highly placed employee at Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson to Minoru Yamasaki on June 31, 1968 stating:

Careful, Loss. He might take you seriously!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's absolute nonsense. I happen to have come into possession of a confidential email sent by a highly placed employee at Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson to Minoru Yamasaki on June 31, 1968 stating:

We have calculated the safety factor of Tower One at 9.2 milicochranes per foot pound. However, the safety factor of Tower Two is only 2.6 and one should at all costs avoid flying an as-yet uninvented jetliner into it at full speed or, actually, even kicking it particularly hard.​

So you, PVT, and Architect and Agent Roberts can consider yourselves DEBUNKED!

milicochranes? does that mean the towers fell at warp speed? (that would certainly be faster than freefall)

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

"faster than free fall? who makes up this dumb stuff?"

Throw a ball into the ground its not that stupid.

And that was the last coffee in the pot. My screen's a mess. I hope that it didn't damage my keyboard.

 

[imstellar28]

I must have been absent the day my professor explained that having a sufficiently high safety factor makes a structure invincible. Of all the days to miss in my four years of mechanical engineering in college...

Seriously, you will never find a simple, all-encompassing safety factor for the towers because one doesn't exist. To build on Architect's explanation, a structure like the towers is too complicated to have such a simple factor. Safety factors as described by imstellar28 are only useful in simple devices that don't have many failure mechanisms. An elevator has an easy to determine safety factor because there is only one significant way for an elevator to fail, and only one type of force would cause that failure. A building is very different. Many different supports are reliant on each other, forces are not evenly distributed, forces are not uniformly directed, and many different mechanisms can cause an element to fail. Having so many failure mechanisms and so many forces involved means that any all-encompassing safety factor would be too complicated to be useful.

What is more, safety factors rarely (if ever) consider damage. If an elevator says it can carry 2500 lbs and has a safety factor of two, then it is designed to carry 5000 lbs during normal operating conditions. If you light the elevator on fire or damage the cables/brakes, then the safety factor becomes meaningless. So even if there was a safety factor for the towers, it would have been rendered non-applicable by the plane impacts and the fires.

The premise is that even if the steel was weakened 60-80% of its strength due to the fire it would have still been strong enough to support the weight of the structure given that it was designed to support the weight of a structure 2 times its actual weight. I'm not sure how else to interpret such figures. Now as to whether the safety factor was actually 2 is another matter.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The premise is that even if the steel was weakened 60-80% of its strength due to the fire it would have still been strong enough to support the weight of the structure given that it was designed to support the weight of a structure 2 times its actual weight. I'm not sure how else to interpret such figures. Now as to whether the safety factor was actually 2 is another matter.

now is that safety factor based on dead load or live load? does it take dynamic load into account? do you know the difference between the 3? (ill admit im not the best qualified here, or even nearly so, but those 3 load types are soemthing i quickly learned while researching the collapse of the WTC, i shoudl expect anyone who has spent a few weeks studying should know them as well)

 

[hellaeon]

Apart from the laughter your causing me stella I think you really need to think before you write. Dont you have any dignity?

 

[AZCat]

The premise is that even if the steel was weakened 60-80% of its strength due to the fire it would have still been strong enough to support the weight of the structure given that it was designed to support the weight of a structure 2 times its actual weight. I'm not sure how else to interpret such figures. Now as to whether the safety factor was actually 2 is another matter.

You have two choices: 1) calculate the safety factors of the various structural members comprising the WTC towers, or 2) read the NIST report.
When you've done one of those (or both) then we can begin talking about how much the load-bearing capacity of the towers was reduced by the various events on September 11th.

 

[imstellar28]

The Trinity video is of WTC2 and is looking north at the south face. Not sure which facade was hit by flight 175, but I think it was the southern face.

I believe the plane hit the south face of WTC2 (south tower) at 9:03 am at an angle and preceded to slide damaging the east face, is that correct?

 

[imstellar28]

Excerpt from the NIST bible:

The safety factor for yielding and buckling is:
• 1.67 and 1.92 for core columns in the original design and SOP cases, and for all columns in refined NIST estimate case.
• 1.26 and 1.44 for perimeter columns in the original design and SOP case (discounting the 1/3 increase in allowable stress under wind loads).
• After reaching the yield strength, structural steel components continue to have significant reserve capacity, thus allowing for load redistribution to other components that are still in the elastic range.
• On September 11, the towers were subjected to in-service live loads, which are considered to be approximately 25 percent of the design live loads.
• On September 11, the wind loads were minimal, thus allowing significantly more reserve capacity for the exterior walls (demand on exterior columns was about 1/5 their capacity).

 

[imstellar28]

Another from the NIST bible:

"After aircraft impact, the core carried 6 percent less loads. The north wall
loads reduced by 6 percent and the east face loads increased by 24 percent. The south and west wallscarried 2 percent to 3 percent more load.It was found that both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact and that they had considerable reserve capacity from the global analyses with structural impact damage"

So right here the impact of the planes can be thrown out the window as the cause of the collapse. Now we are dealing with a collapse due 100% to the fires.

 

[Gravy]

He didnt talk about intolerance. Here is what he actually said

Yes, his whole post was about intolerance. Let's have a look at his points, which he claims are attacks by us:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.

I've never seen anyone claim that. But if someone is arguing that NIST is wrong, and can't address specifics, and cherry-picks data, or clearly hasn't read the report, they're going to be taken to task. This happens regularly and will continue to happen.

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

Yes, that sure is a lot to ask of people who claim that Islamist terrorists didn't attack the U.S., but the U.S. government did.

(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”

That question sometimes gets asked when a truther claims to possess special knowledge. In this thread Pardalis asked "Who is Wayne Trumpman?" I think that's a fair question, because Mr. Trumpman makes extraordinary statements about physics that are not supported by citations or by any science that I've ever been exposed to. But perhaps he's from the future. Or something.

(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.

A fair question, when the truther questions the competence of the NIST investigators.

(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

(...or their "absolute evidence" to a prosecutor, I would add.) This seldom is asked. It was asked of Greening because he said he had a new theory involving technical issues, that he had shopped around to the likes of Ace Baker, Eric Hufschmid, David Ray Griffin, and Jimmy Walter – a Murderers' Row of ignorance. Arkan quite correctly suggested that he submit his work – which he had not offered to us – to legitimate journals, rather than to the incompetent fools he had named. Of course Greening was trying to prove a point that it isn't hard to come up with a conspiracy theory that equals or betters anything the truthers have. Many of us have made similar posts here, without acting like twits.