I found the missing Jolt.

[skyeagle409]

It seems you quit typing before you justified your belief that FLT 93 was shot down.

I disagree with those who've claimed that United 93 was shot down.

First of all, there was no shoot-down order issued before United 93 crashed, and secondly, the military was unaware of the location of United 93 before it crashed.

 

[rwguinn]

Just to let you know that I deal in reality, not fantasy. I hope that will allow you to avoid making further mistakes of the way you think.

You have to remember, OZ was an engineering Manager
To a certain extent, he is correct: The evidence is there for a CD, because the difference , at the macro level, between CD and "accidental" Demolition doesn't exist: you have a pile of rubble where once a building stood.
Both are gravity induced collapses. the "C" in "CD" stands for controlled--you decide when and where the collapse happens. You do that by analytically and systematically directing the collapse by weakening and/or removing the structure, much as you do in felling a tree: notch it here, here, and there, so this falls that-a-way.
That leaves evidence of the weakening. While it is true that if one doesn't care about collateral damage, it is possible to demolish a building with indiscriminate explosive use, that also leaves evidence.
No such evidence was seen in any of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11/2001. So the macro evidence for CD or, more appropriately, ED, exists, the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of airplanes and unfought fires. on one side you have strength of materials, thermodynamics, physics, mechanics, heat-distorted metal, visual evidence of aircraft damage and fires, plus decades of testing. On the other, you have imagination and nothing else.

 

[jaydeehess]

Good question.

You suggested it and yet have no answer?
Once again, how does femr2's work constitute evidence that a new investigation is warrented?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Depends on the fire, where the fire burns, and the structure. The Bay Bridge came down in under an hour. WTC2 burned for around an hour. The fuel in the WTC would have been extensive: paper, carpet, wall paneling, plastics, furniture, and in WTC1 & 2 - bodies.

The fire continued to burn by jumping floors. This likely happened from embers blowing out of the windows and into upper floors where the windows were gone. Another way fire transits levels is via plumbing and electrical ducts leave space for flame to move as well as provide air to feed the fire. I know that because we just had the fire inspector drop by a few weeks ago and mandated that seal the spaces around our pipes between the floors with fire-proof foam. He said this was a post-911 fire code upgrade.

There's no mystery.

The situation with WTC 2 was even far more complicated than just the fire (I know you're aware). The plane slammed into the building off-center near the corner causing the hat truss at the top to have to carry additional loads. On top of having nearly twice as many floors above the impact. There was a lower threshold required for the fires to deal the finishing "blow" for lack of better words

You have to remember, OZ was an engineering Manager
To a certain extent, he is correct: The evidence is there for a CD, because the difference , at the macro level, between CD and "accidental" Demolition doesn't exist: you have a pile of rubble where once a building stood.
Both are gravity induced collapses. the "C" in "CD" stands for controlled--you decide when and where the collapse happens. You do that by analytically and systematically directing the collapse by weakening and/or removing the structure, much as you do in felling a tree: notch it here, here, and there, so this falls that-a-way.
That leaves evidence of the weakening. While it is true that if one doesn't care about collateral damage, it is possible to demolish a building with indiscriminate explosive use, that also leaves evidence.
No such evidence was seen in any of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11/2001. So the macro evidence for CD or, more appropriately, ED, exists, the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of airplanes and unfought fires. on one side you have strength of materials, thermodynamics, physics, mechanics, heat-distorted metal, visual evidence of aircraft damage and fires, plus decades of testing. On the other, you have imagination and nothing else.

Correct., I hate dog piling, but Ozeco may seemingly "join the dark side" on some issues, but not really. I've done this thought process before to cut out all the noise... for example one doesn't need to prove to me means and methods of the "CD", since the actually implementation is what must be proven to have happened for all the rest to fall in line. That is... if you decided to give these arguments benefit of the doubt.

 

[JSanderO]

...... The plane slammed into the building off-center near the corner causing the hat truss at the top to have to carry additional loads.....

...

Do explain how the hat truss carried additional loads..

What load did the hat truss carry?

Before the plane hit

After the plane hit

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

What is your question?

And there it is...the stall.

 

[Axxman300]

The situation with WTC 2 was even far more complicated than just the fire (I know you're aware). The plane slammed into the building off-center near the corner causing the hat truss at the top to have to carry additional loads. On top of having nearly twice as many floors above the impact. There was a lower threshold required for the fires to deal the finishing "blow" for lack of better words.

Yup. I'm no engineer, but I'm certain that had both planes struck on even lower floors the towers would have dropped sooner. Al Qaeda was hoping they'd topple sideways like a tree.

 

[ozeco41]

Just to let you know that I deal in reality, not fantasy. I hope that will allow you to avoid making further mistakes of the way you think.

You have to remember, OZ was an engineering Manager...

Which is the experience that makes it easy to pick when "practising level" engineers lose the plot or get bogged down chasing truthers or trolls down rabbit burrows of irrelevant details. Reality is that a lot of confusions which arise in these 9/11 discussions fall into the category of management of engineering rather that engineering per se.

The examples abound - "losing the plot" - busy chasing alligators when the objective was "drain the swamp" AND the consequences of bogging down in details. There is little point in arguing about which leaf on which branch of which tree when you are in the wrong forest.

To a certain extent, he is correct:...

I sure was - for the two points I originally made I was about 99% guaranteed correct. Before skyeagle missed the point and engaged in the sniping personal comments.

For what it is worth I fully support your additional comments.

 

[jaydeehess]

Do explain how the hat truss carried additional loads..

What load did the hat truss carry?

Before the plane hit

After the plane hit

Simple (simplistic) answer is that with perimeter columns severed, the column portions above that were hanging from the hat truss, that meant extra load on the hat truss which would be distributing that load to other intact columns.

 

[ozeco41]

Correct., I hate dog piling, but Ozeco may seemingly "join the dark side" on some issues,...

I've got this bad habit. I agree with what is true and disagree with what is not true. Independent of who says it. AND consistent with "scientific method" AKA an hypothesis stands until it is rebutted by objective reasoned arguments.

Which "bad habit" means I refuse to accept the two memes of "Truthers are always wrong" AND "Bazant is/was always right".

... but not really.

I've done this thought process before to cut out all the noise... for example one doesn't need to prove to me means and methods of the "CD", since the actually implementation is what must be proven to have happened for all the rest to fall in line....

If the starting scenario is wrong (Szamboti - most claims) OR the model is wrong (The Coles video - models 2-3-4-5) there is zero point building any counter claims for the real event based on the foundation of the truther defined false starting scenario.

That is... if you decided to give these arguments benefit of the doubt.

Except if you enjoy the "fun" of ridiculing nonsense. As a general rule I don't.

 

[jaydeehess]

Which is the experience that makes it easy to pick when "practising level" engineers lose the plot or get bogged down chasing truthers or trolls down rabbit burrows of irrelevant details. Reality is that a lot of confusions which arise in these 9/11 discussions fall into the category of management of engineering rather that engineering per se.

The examples abound - "losing the plot" - busy chasing alligators when the objective was "drain the swamp" AND the consequences of bogging down in details. There is little point in arguing about which leaf on which branch of which tree when you are in the wrong forest.

I sure was - for the two points I originally made I was about 99% guaranteed correct. Before skyeagle missed the point nnd engaged in the sniping personal comments.

For what it is worth I fully support your additional comments.

I concur that many are the times when a truther has debunkers chasing something that should be either ignored or demonstrated to be irrelevant.

 

[ozeco41]

Do explain how the hat truss carried additional loads..

What load did the hat truss carry?

Before the plane hit

After the plane hit

Simple (simplistic) answer is that with perimeter columns severed, the column portions above that were hanging from the hat truss, that meant extra load on the hat truss which would be distributing that load to other intact columns.

Agreed as a first step simplified explanation.

The main purpose for this sort of question is in support of explanations of the "initiation stage" collapse mechanism. In that scenario the two key issues IMO are:
1) The impact and fire damaged zone was progressively weakening - primarily driven by a cascading failure of columns either already cut or in axial compression overload from load redistribution. (At least the first one triggered by heat...)
2) The load redistribution aspects largely influenced by the flexibility of the still integral "Top Block" - and the Hat Truss was a big component of that flexible but still integral Top Block.

However it wasn't simply that the columns individually hung off the Hat Truss. There was a lot of interconnection between the "sheets" of columns resulting from the spandrel arrangement.

So I agree with the simple broad statement. But how all the loads were redistributed and the magnitude of the part the Hat Truss played is more complex.

I doubt it helps explain the "initiation failure" in any way which is of pragmatic help to understanding at the usual level of forum debates.

 

[ozeco41]

Yup. I'm no engineer, but I'm certain that had both planes struck on even lower floors the towers would have dropped sooner.

Agree "drop sooner". But there is IMO a more interesting engineering forensic aspect. If struck lower would the "Top Block" have toppled?

A few years back someone somewhere posted that issue to me as a head scratching challenge to my engineering judgement. (AFAICS it was originally on The911Forum.)

"If the planes had struck lower would the 'Top Block' have toppled over the side?"

It is nowhere near as obvious as it looks.

I concluded "No toppling"..

I could very well be wrong.

My qualified reasoning (I.e. NOT "quantified") is the same as my explanation for why neither top block toppled at the original different levels of aircraft impact.



PS: I still think that the most obvious argument supporting "Yes it would topple" is wrong.

I could be wrong on that one also.

 

[skyeagle409]

Which is the experience that makes it easy to pick when "practising level" engineers lose the plot or get bogged down chasing truthers or trolls down rabbit burrows of irrelevant details. Reality is that a lot of confusions which arise in these 9/11 discussions fall into the category of management of engineering rather that engineering per se.

To set the record straight, when I posted that there was no CD evidence, did you post the following response?

24th June 2016, 11:40 PM #1634
ozeco41

Hogwash. But you are misunderstanding the basic concept of what evidence is and how it is used. It is a common error made by both "sides".

Now, as an engineer manager, confirm that I am 100% correct when I'd stated "no CD evidence," because as an engineer manager, you should have known that I was correct and why.

 

[ozeco41]

To set the record straight,...

The record already is straight.

.... when I posted that there was no CD evidence, did you post the following response?

Quote:
24th June 2016, 11:40 PM #1634
ozeco41

Hogwash. But you are misunderstanding the basic concept of what evidence is and how it is used. It is a common error made by both "sides".

Yes. Why don't you read it again and read my explanation? Especially the key point about "weight of evidence" which you chose to parody! When people who are wrong resort to personal attacks and false parodies of the true facts I do not continue to engage in discussion with them.

Now, as an engineer manager, confirm that I am 100% correct when I'd stated "no CD evidence," because as an engineer manager, you should have known that I was correct and why.

You were not correct - and - when you have dug yourself into a hole the best advice is "stop digging". Needle or insult as much as you want it will not irritate me. If you decide to seriously address what I said let me know. Otherwise this will be my last response on this matter.

 

[JSanderO]

Simple (simplistic) answer is that with perimeter columns severed, the column portions above that were hanging from the hat truss, that meant extra load on the hat truss which would be distributing that load to other intact columns.

Simple explanation you gave is incorrect. Severed facade columns loads were moved around to the adjacent facade columns. Hat truss had nothing to do with this... the Facade deign was enough like a membrane that load could move laterally through the spandrels! Column connections were not designed as hangers... There were axial bearing ones.... This is certainly true for the core.

 

[beachnut]

trolls who can't do physics, stop quoting them - and what is a hat truss

Redistribution of load was possible due to the hat truss, but I bet it was mainly through the spandrels. What does Gage say? lol, this is about the fantasy of 9/11 truth, the CD fantasy, the realcddeal BS.
Who is trying to get their engineering degree?

The hat truss could distribute load to other walls when the collapse begins... was there any twisting, and shout and let...

Stop the BS off the top of the head nonsense and maybe we could stop posting to trolls and see if the keep posting to themselves -

 

[JSanderO]

Redistribution of load was possible due to the hat truss, but I bet it was mainly through the spandrels. What does Gage say? lol, this is about the fantasy of 9/11 truth, the CD fantasy, the realcddeal BS.
Who is trying to get their engineering degree?

The hat truss could distribute load to other walls when the collapse begins... was there any twisting, and shout and let...

Stop the BS off the top of the head nonsense and maybe we could stop posting to trolls and see if the keep posting to themselves -

Excuse me?

The hat truss had 4 outrigger trusses to the facade opposite the core... the 4 corners and opposite the two rows of columns in the center of the core.

Kindly explain how this works?

 

[beachnut]

Excuse me?

The hat truss had 4 outrigger trusses to the facade opposite the core... the 4 corners and opposite the two rows of columns in the center of the core.

Kindly explain how this works?

It is called engineering, stop spreading BS; Read more about the WTC structure, don't make it up. Ask Robertson to explain it, or do research. Did you miss the part, "mainly through the spandrels".

 

[JSanderO]

No I didn't miss the part... but I seriously question that the hat truss can move loads from the facade.... and also believe severed multi story columns would not hang in place from the hat truss.... Do you?