Question for the twoofers about why NIST is wrong

[Wizard]

There is absolutely no similarity between Jenga and and the world trade centre collapse. You call our science junk?

I really am leaving the thread now. It has dropped way below the minimum standard I impose

 

[DavidJames]

I really am leaving the thread now. It has dropped way below the minimum standard I impose

WOW I need to update my sig, that is priceless. You believe every bit of claptrap that drips from CTists websites.

I bet you even believe it.

 

[beachnut]

There is absolutely no similarity between Jenga and and the world trade centre collapse. You call our science junk?

I really am leaving the thread now. It has dropped way below the minimum standard I impose

I think you need to prove why the WTC did not collapse!

I knew you could not do it.

 

[beachnut]

Wizard's only standard is woowoo Truther lies! bye Wizard

need physics?

 

[beachnut]

Wizard's logo could be, based on his post, if it aint prisonPlanet I don't post it.

Wizard can not tell us what is wrong with NIST; and he has failed to think outside the box of LC, prisonPlanet; yet there are schools all around the world who have calculated the energy required to destroy the WTC.

Reports all around the world on the WTC collapse. Some will take money to buy; Engineers require money to work; Wizard, go hire some engineers to prove to you why the WTC collapsed.

Here are some free quick assessments; My brother is an ME and he does not need any report to come up with a very similar scenario to NIST, I am only a lowly EE with a MSEE, but I can be coached to a similar scenario to NIST, but I also did basic energy calculation on the WTC collapse.

Over all when you take the PE of the WTC; each tower had the energy of 248 tons of TNT stored up ready to run to the ground in a terribly destructive rain of steel and concrete like the energy of 1000 500 pound bombs raining down destroying itself. Get some experience and read about CD and how they use gravity, you will understand the truth if you try.

Wizard, you are an engineering degree away from understanding the WTC collapse. Bet you have not had Calculus or physics either. It could take you 6 years to get enough engineering basics till you could trust the NIST report.

You are wasting time here; You lack the basic tools need to understand the WTC collapse. BYE, go back to school or finish school ASAP

 

[defaultdotxbe]

the problem is the CTers always look at everything in CTer terms, they think that if NIST is right engineers should all be patting eachother on the back and publishing papers saying "yeah, way to go" "your right" "good job"

of course if an engineer (or any scientist) is going to take the time to research, prepare, and publish a paper on a subject hes going to do it on a subject that he has something to say about, not a subject he thinks has been adequately covered

it would be nice if there was a search engine where you could find any scholarly articles that cite the NIST report

 

[gumboot]

There is absolutely no similarity between Jenga and and the world trade centre collapse. You call our science junk?

This is a common failure of the CTer mindset. They just are incapable of understanding anything, aren't they?

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

There is absolutely no similarity between Jenga and and the world trade centre collapse. You call our science junk?

I really am leaving the thread now. It has dropped way below the minimum standard I impose

The Alex Jones standard of "if it is not a lie, I will not tell it"?

Not sure if everything in the world, lies and facts, are not well above all of your standards.

 

[~enigma~]

but the lack of them proves nothing.

It most certainly does mean something wizard my boy. it simply means that there is an absence of them so there is no logical reason for anyone to assume they exist.

 

[~enigma~]

So you think it is enough just to state that initiation leads to total collapse without any actual justification? Oh my, that's really good science.

Do you know anything about momentum? Let's for a minute assume that you can support a 500 pound barbell. Let's also assume that you can handle it if someone drops it from one foot above you, same for two feet and maybe even three (we think your strong). I can assure you that if I dropped it from 6-7 feet you would be squashed like a bug. Now you have an idea about momentum. Ok...how could the global collapse be avoided after the collapse was initiated?

 

[beachnut]

What could your problem be Wizard; the aircraft impact as big in energy as a 2000 pound bomb. Fuel spilled into the building causing the steel to be exposed to sustained temperatures exceeding 800 C. The loss of protective fireproofing in the initial blast allowed accelerated heating of the steel leading to weakened strength. Do you think there was significant viscoplastic deformation (like creep). This of course would lead to creep buckling of columns and which would lose their load carrying capacity.

Wizard do you think when more than half the columns in the floor that is heated most suffer buckling, that the weight of the upper part of the building above that floor can no longer be supported? Thus the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below this failing heated area gathering speed, it impact the lower part! BANG This enormous kinetic energy with a downward velocity; this exceeded the load capacity even of the lower non-heated floor; this fails instantaneously. In the collisions due to failure, the velocity never gets less, it only gains velocity due to gravity acceleration and that acceleration is modulated by the chaotic exchange of momentum; but the velocity continues to accelerate, newly destroyed sections instantaneously reach the new speed associated with only momentum minus the energy removed for destruction of resistance. No stopping this train, it is releasing 1,000,000,000,000 joules (like 248 TONS of TNT). Step back if you want to live.

Only idiots can not grasp this energy! 1,000,000,000,000 joules! That is 248 TONS of TNT. (okay, I can't and that makes me an idiot too SO)

I just think what have I seen like this energy. I saw a SCUD go off a half mile away, it blew out my window in office for tanker operations at Riyadh Saudi Arabia. It was just over 500 pounds. The WTC energy in a tower was like 1000 500 pound bombs. So 1000 500 pound bombs would easily do the destruction you see at the WTC.

This is what destroyed the WTC. The KE of the upper floor destroyed those below. Simple, yet Wizard you are lacking an education to understand this. You would rather go with Alex Jones or any prisonPlanet article of lies.

But you are missing the energy and do not understand momentum. Once the upper floors exceeded the structure below capability to hold the load, the entire structure failed as the mass continued to grow and the energy in just a few floors continued to gain momentum and destroy more and more below.

I took one floor to figure how much it can hold, then I took the energy above that from the floors failing. The floor above exceeded the floor capacity and failed. The new velocity is only changed by the mass and the loss of energy to overcome structure; as the failure progresses the velocity continues to grow and the collapse accelerates.

Why bother with numbers since you cannot figure out basic physics. No problem.

Even the kooks do numbers! One kook in Dr Jone's, I don't need a peer review I got my own journal, online journal of shame said; the energy to start global collapse was short by 10 or 20 percent. I checked his number and found there was 10 to 20 percent overage, and thus global collapse did occur; I am right, it did occur, the idiot's paper was dead wrong!

Truthers have about 0.00067 percent of all engineers in the United State on their side. This means you guys are lacking the best engineers and are stuck with the dumb ones; the few who are bad engineers or just plain liars.

Good luck but if this is not good enough try asking a teacher you trust.

Bye Wizard

 

[kookbreaker]

There is absolutely no similarity between Jenga and and the world trade centre collapse. You call our science junk?

Yes, it violates everything we know about structures. So we call it junk.

I really am leaving the thread now. It has dropped way below the minimum standard I impose

Meaning that we are explaining things and you can no longer hide your ignorance.

 

[westprog]

There is absolutely no similarity between Jenga and and the world trade centre collapse. You call our science junk?

In layman's terms, Jenga is a very good way to understand the collapse of buildings. The main obvious flaw is that a high rise building is vastly less stable than a Jenga tower because mass is proportional to the cubic dimensions, and the support is proportional to the cross sectional area. The bigger the structure, the more difficult it is to keep up.

It's very easy to see why a Jenga tower will fall over. It's almost impossible to figure out how it will fall over, or to see exactly how it collapses. To use this as an argument that it didn't really collapse when I pulled out that piece, and that you must have kicked the table, is obviously false reasoning.

I really am leaving the thread now. It has dropped way below the minimum standard I impose

I've noticed a common quality among CT advocates. It's a literal mindedness that's almost autistic. "The plane hit the ground at the speed of a bullet". "A plane is nothing like a bullet". Any metaphor is either dismissed as irrelevant, or treated as a giveaway. "It hit the Pentagon like a missile". "Aha!" And when they think they have a valid similarity, they extend it way beyond what is valid. "I dropped one coke can on another coke can and it didn't crush it".

 

[gumboot]

I've noticed a common quality among CT advocates. It's a literal mindedness that's almost autistic. "The plane hit the ground at the speed of a bullet". "A plane is nothing like a bullet". Any metaphor is either dismissed as irrelevant, or treated as a giveaway. "It hit the Pentagon like a missile". "Aha!" And when they think they have a valid similarity, they extend it way beyond what is valid. "I dropped one coke can on another coke can and it didn't crush it".

Amen to that! I was thinking that but didn't know how to word it.

Or to use another example from a CTer "If you drop an egg on a pavement the egg doesn't crush the pavement".

-Gumboot

 

[MG1962]

So you are suggesting that any structure that exceeds its load bearing capacity will totally disintegrate? Do you have any examples of this other than the wtc?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/27/content_301145.htm

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4749900.stm

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/23/1090464865768.html?oneclick=true

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-07/02/content_242443.htm

 

[PerryLogan]

It looks like the official CT answer to the question is:

"I disagree with the NIST report because I saw a Google video."

 

[Lurker]

Right could you please explain, using your masters degree, how the towers collapsed completely after collapse initiation was reached.

What? No apology or acknowledgement that you totally mischaracterized the NIST report by claiming they did not consider thermal loads? Instead you just flit on to the next topic and hope nobody noticed the fact that you dare to criticize NIST yet it is now abundantly clear you have not read it?

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

I confess--I don't use ANSYS. I use I-Deas, PATRAN, and NASTRAN.
All the graphic representation does is allow you to see the basic shape of the elements. NASTRAN just uses lines. Patran does a little better, and I-DEAS does show the relative size, but at any kind of reasonable scale, there will be very little discernable difference between a 13 inch and a 52 inch WF shape. You have to look at the Physical Properties to actually tell the difference. You can also turn that feature off. The ANSYS I recall using (several years ago) just used primitive shapes (rods, circles, squares, etc).
It takes a whole bunch of computer power to show results and shape of element--graphics power better used to display the results in a timely manner. Not everybody is a gamer--we actually use the power built into our computers.
And before anybody gets bent out of shape over the apparent deflections shown in anything, default for any of these programs is generally normalized to max deflection=10% of the screen--so you can actually see it.
So if you are showing a 6 feet deflection on a 1300 foot building, the apparent deflection, as shown on the plots, will appear to be 130 feet. This is known as exageration you have to actually read the little numbers on the screen or in the report. This, obviously, is something Wizzard (Rincewind?) and his ilk are incapable of doing. They just don't have the skills

I concur about FEA programs graphically representing complex shapes with simple elements. Beam elements certainly do this. My experience is in ABAQUS (King of the nonlinear codes)

 

[Mobyseven]

Interesting...there is this:

There is a third option. NIST gets some things right and some wrong.

Followed immediately by this:

Is NIST right or wrong?

[redneck]Yep Billy-Joe-Bob, it sure looks like a blatant contradiction to me. Not to mention the false dichotomy presented in the second statement.[/redneck]

 

[The Almond]

There is absolutely no similarity between Jenga and and the world trade centre collapse.

How incredibly disappointing. Rather than read my argument and respond to the various points, you dismiss it wholesale.

Was the purpose of my statement to compare the Jenga tower directly to the WTC towers, or rather to compare the similar properties of both?

Do you agree that both the Jenga tower and the WTC tower lack the ability to stop a collapse once it starts?

Do you agree that the fact that despite being redundantly loaded, it still only takes the removal of one critical piece to cause the tower to collapse?

Do you agree that each floor of the Jenga tower and the WTC tower must be static for the structure to be stable?

Yes or no?

You asked me a direct question in this thread about why a tower must collapse once initiation is reached. But it's clear to me now that you didn't want an answer. Indeed, you believe that engineers are too afraid to answer your tough questions, and you would rather that I kept silent on the matter.

Yet when I present you an answer to a question that you asked directly of me, you don't read the argument, respond to its points or ask follow-up questions. It speaks volumes about the truth movement: Ask questions, but don't listen to the answers.

You call our science junk?

What statements have I made that contradict the laws of physics? Would you like me to show you 50 statements made by conspiracy theorists that contradict the laws of physics? Would you read it if I did?

I really am leaving the thread now. It has dropped way below the minimum standard I impose

So, after someone with an education and relevant knowledge on the subject calls your bluff TWICE, rather than accepting the validity of the arguments, you've decided to turn tail and run to another thread?