• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I need serious help with this guy

Sunray Breaker said:
OK....Some more crap from this dude...HELP!!!



Thanks again to all of you for saving me from the madness that is TWOOF.
Click to expand...

Have you suggested he sign up here and debate with the engineers on this forum? If so, what was his response?
 
basically the more I work on this the stronger that building looks and the less likely a collapse could have been naturally initiated simply by fires

which according to the NIST report did not exceed 500 degrees ?
my bet is C but could have been F
do me a favor and go through the NIST report and find the section which covers the examination of the steel subjected to heat
Click to expand...

"my bet is C but could have been F" followed by telling you to go through NIST... He's a two-faced idiot.

NIST's fire simulation is in NCSTAR1-5F. They estimate structural steel temperatures (in Celsius, not Fahrenheit) up to about 930oC. This simulation is also consistent with all the recovered pieces.

Now, while we didn't recover any piece (in recognizable shape) that got that hot, we do have the mockup fire test in NCSTAR1-5E, which was instrumented. All of those fires exceeded 1000oC gas temperature, and one even exceeded 1600oC before destroying the instruments measuring the temperature. So yes, it's possible.

Moron doesn't have a clue what's in the report, yet he's demanding that you read it. Don't waste your time on this guy.
 
was just working out the wind load on the towers and I realized that your man got the correct concrete mix most likely used on this type of floor system wrong...
way wrong
remember that next time you reference him
if there is one thing I passed with flying colors
it was my exam for license
at least back when they gave exams
basically you had to show you could use the code book effectively
nowadays all you have to be able to do is afford the insurance

guys a pencil pusher
not a builder

and way wrong in his estimates....
Click to expand...

Is this in response to me? I over-estimated the floor strength. 4000psi is generous. Moreover, the capacity of a floor to carry super-imposed loads had almost nothing to do with the strength of the concrete.

A Vulcraft 24gauge 1.5C deck with 4" total of concrete and 6x6-W2.1x2.1 (welded wire fabric) can support a superimposed load of 136 psf with supports at 4' - 0" o.c. That's with 3000psi concrete.

I just pulled that number out of a book that I regularly use to design buildings.

FYI, the design live load for the floors in the WTC was 100psf.

I'll have more on this guys idiocy later. I need to get back to engineering.
 
Last edited:
which according to the NIST report did not exceed 500 degrees ?
my bet is C but could have been F
do me a favor and go through the NIST report and find the section which covers the examination of the steel subjected to heat
I need those numbers and if you can find em
Click to expand...
Looks like he's getting ready to pull out the old "NIST said the steel never got above 250 degrees! ZOMG inside jobzorz!!!" schtick.

What he doesn't know (among many, many other things) is that if you dig through the NIST reports to find out the as-built locations whence the recovered steel samples came and then look at the temperatures predicted by the fire and fire-structure interface models for those particular members it turns out that what the models predicted jibes nicely with what the examination of the samples showed.

This increases rather than decreases our confidence that the fire modeling was valid and useful.

Some details with references to the appropriate sections of the NCSTAR reports in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2510560&postcount=16this old post of mine.
 
"That is utterly false. The time for total collapse was MUCH greater. Photographs of showing the cores of both towers standing long after the main collapse available all over the place."

The times given for the "time" of the collapse in fact relate to huge sheets of the exterior facade which peeled off the structure and DID fall at near free fall speed. But not the core columns

Is here:

Quote:
this is ridiculous
by that logic any sliver left standing at all results in an infinite time of collapse
please do not come at me with ludicrous attempts to deviate from the obvious

Is he really contending that the entire collpase occurred within the time it took for the first debris to hit the ground?

Wow.
 
Have you suggested he sign up here and debate with the engineers on this forum? If so, what was his response?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, several times....He keeps falling back on this silly, unfounded accusation that you guys are agnotologists.
 
Sunray Breaker said:
Oh yes, several times....He keeps falling back on this silly, unfounded accusation that you guys are agnotologists.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you mean antagonists there, and suggest that he seems pretty antagonistic himself. Does he think he couldn't hold his own, or what? And did you two kiss and make up over the weekend?
 
No he meant agnotologists. He's claiming that we use science to perpetuate ignorance.
 
16.5 said:
Is he really contending that the entire collpase occurred within the time it took for the first debris to hit the ground?

Wow.
Click to expand...
He probably thinks the pieces that hit first were covered in nano thermite that rocketed it downward. :D
 
No he meant agnotologists. He's claiming that we use science to perpetuate ignorance.
Click to expand...

Exactly...What's rediculous about tis claim, is that this is one of the few places I can think of that speaks OUT against agnotology.
 
He probably thinks the pieces that hit first were covered in nano thermite that rocketed it downward.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that he can look at a clear image of debris falling much faster than the building and still fall back on his BS free fall claims
 
Well, if he actually digested that information, that would mean he was wrong and he'd have to give up his long held beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable as I'm sure you and I both know.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
No he meant agnotologists. He's claiming that we use science to perpetuate ignorance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a word for that. Thanks for the edu. Isn't it the truthers who try to use science to perpetuate ignorance?:boggled:
 
T.A.M. said:
As others have said, he is a 100% fraud. I doubt he is anything more than an engineer wannabee, and most likely is just a stupid hack.
Click to expand...
◊◊◊◊-oh-dear, I'M and engineer wannabe, and his claims STILL stink! (Was that the correct ratio of ALL CAPS to explanation points to establish my wannabe cred?)

ETA: (Without negating it so I can post here? ;) )
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
Sorry, I didn't realize there was a word for that. Thanks for the edu. Isn't it the truthers who try to use science to perpetuate ignorance?:boggled:
Click to expand...

FWIW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology
Agnotologists study culturally-induced ignorance. The academic discipline developed out of a desire to understand the publication of false or misleading scientific studies.
One example is the tobacco industry producing studies that 'showed' few, or no, ill health effects of smoking.

Of course both sides of any scientific debate often refer to the others as having produced false or misleading scientific studies.
 
Last edited:
which according to the NIST report did not exceed 500 degrees ?
my bet is C but could have been F
do me a favor and go through the NIST report and find the section which covers the examination of the steel subjected to heat
I need those numbers and if you can find em
Click to expand...

That's odd. He 'knows' the number NIST used (but got it wrong) yet does not recall the units?

Is his google broken?
 
Why does an 'engineer' not have the first year physics accumen to realize that THE ONLY WAY to have the collapse acheive free fall accelleration would be to blow all supports, on all floors, all at the same time?

His 'calculation' of terminal velocity is laughable. If he wants to know what the terminal velocity of an object would be he could google'terminal velocity'.
Now time to reach Vterm is a different animal and involves advanced calculus.

In a vacuum v=at
but if atmospheric drag (air resistence) acts against the movement
D is proportional to the square of velocity
D=0.5CDpv2A

where CD = the drag coefficient of the material that is falling
A= the surface area facing the direction of the velocity vector(aka the frontal area)
p is the density of the gas through which the object is falling

At terminal velocity the force due to gravity equals the drag force

take any object and set
mg=0.5CDpv2A and solve for v to find terminal velocity
v=sqrt(2mg/CDpA)

I challenge anyone without a math or physics degree to now solve the time to reach terminal velocity. It will involve some calculus(integration).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom