Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

[Architect]

Do you know physics beachnut? If so, why have you held back for sooooo long?

Just asking...

Mote -> eye.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If there was no statistically significant jolt during the first 1st floor of collapse, 2nd subsequent floor collapse, 3rd subsequent floor collapse OR 4th subsequent floor collapse for each building then we would need information on why a certain floor or floors of the initial pancaking didn't cause any significant jolt (to determine a significant jolt size we would need to look at the initial jolts in the collapse of other steel framed buildings - perhaps those of Vérinage collapse).

Alternatively, you could take a physically realistic approach to understanding the collapse, rather than to take a limiting case and assume it accurately reflects reality. The entire "missing jolt" argument originates from Tony Szamboti's inability to comprehend solid geometry and vector addition, and, most ironically, Szamboti's own data shows measurement artifacts comparable to the jolts he claims are absent from it.

Use of the word "jolt", over the last year or two, has replaced "pyroclastic flow" as the key indicator of someone who has no idea what he's talking about.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

You don't know that. It might have just been water from WORKING sprinklers running down the stairs.

Even if the sprinklers were undamaged, they were designed for fires much smaller than the gas-fueled horror they faced on 9/11. Sprinkler don't put the fire out on there own. Firemen with hoses and water are expected to show up shortly. That didn't happen on 9/11.

My relevant experience with NYC fire codes and evacuation procedures says that a high-rise fire is expected to be kept to one floor by all the fire-stop design. The sprinkler system is sized accordingly. The sprinklers were not designed for a multi-floor fire.

 

[T.A.M.]

If there was no statistically significant jolt during the first 1st floor of collapse, 2nd subsequent floor collapse, 3rd subsequent floor collapse OR 4th subsequent floor collapse for each building then we would need information on why a certain floor or floors of the initial pancaking didn't cause any significant jolt (to determine a significant jolt size we would need to look at the initial jolts in the collapse of other steel framed buildings - perhaps those of Vérinage collapse).

The initial period of collapse is most important (in Jolt CT) because that is when the controlled demolition would most likely have gone off. It is also the period where there would be the greatest resistance coming from the upward force of the "bottom block" of each WTC building. You would expect to see small to large jolts unless entire floor/s were "vaporized" allowing the "upper block" to miss contact with the top floor/s of the bottom block.

So in theory, the jolt test would be good to figure out whether there was a controlled demolition of the "floor vaporizing" variety.

what form of formal training have you had in these areas? Just curious, as you speak quite fluently in these topics given you are only a few weeks into the whole "9/11 CT" thing?

TAM

 

[Patriots4Truth]

All my training is in my BA of statistics and work in actuarial math. The rest is common sense questions I've gathered upon researching 9/11 conspiracy over the past 2 & 1/2 weeks.

 

[excaza]

The rest is common sense questions I've gathered upon researching 9/11 conspiracy over the past 2 & 1/2 weeks.

I've highlighted the 2 mutually exclusive portions of your post.

 

[uke2se]

common sense

No.

upon researching 9/11 conspiracy over the past 2 & 1/2 weeks.

You can drop this ruse. Nobody believes you.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

No.

You can drop this ruse. Nobody believes you.

the stone cold truth is that I've only been researching 9/11 for 2.5 weeks. this is funny to me because you all have no evidence to the contrary and you already believe something not to be true. where's the common sense in that? ("uhhh, I've seen socks before"??). you would believe that I'm a sock based on no evidence only because you have seen sock puppets before? your beliefs lack common sense

 

[Architect]

I don't care whether you're a sock or not. I do care whether you think that your professional qualifications and limited study allow you to speak with confidence and expertise in complex issues such as structural engineering, fire engineering, and building fabric analysis.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I don't have personal confidence in that field (even if my lie a few pages back made me appear like I did - you caught me there).

But I do have several questions, a lot of which should be easy for architects, engineers, and physicists to answer.

 

[Lenbrazil]

If there was no statistically significant jolt during the first 1st floor of collapse...

Why should anyone was their time arguing engineering and physics with someone who thinks the "floor of collapses" should have led to "statistically significant jolt(s)"

 

[uke2se]

the stone cold truth is that I've only been researching 9/11 for 2.5 weeks.

Even if you weren't a sock, which I'm fairly sure you are, you still haven't researched 9/11 for 2.5 weeks. What you have done is look at youtube videos and read conspiracy forums. Researching 9/11 would mean reading the 9/11 commission report, reading the NIST reports and talking to the scientists who wrote those reports. Have you done that? My guess is 'no'.

this is funny to me because you all have no evidence to the contrary and you already believe something not to be true.

It's funny to me that you think anyone buys your BS.

where's the common sense in that? ("uhhh, I've seen socks before"??).

It's not about common sense. It's about intuition and having experience of how the twoofer mind works.

you would believe that I'm a sock based on no evidence only because you have seen sock puppets before?

Pretty much. I believe you are a sock because you act like a sock, talk like a sock and spew lies like a sock.

your beliefs lack common sense

They have a lot of evidence, though. More than the entire 9/11 twoof movement.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

wow you are no better than your "twoofers"... "intuition", snap judgments with no evidence etc...

 

[excaza]

 

[uke2se]

wow you are no better than your "twoofers"... "intuition", snap judgments with no evidence etc...

Yes, I'm much better than twoofers in that I accept that I might be wrong in my judgment of you and that I'm not trying to build up and spew a conspiracy theory to support my beliefs.

It's nice that you admit that twoofers have nothing but snap judgments and have no evidence. Does this mean this thread is over? I mean, you basically just admitted that you have no evidence.

 

[Bell]

the stone cold truth is that I've only been researching 9/11 for 2.5 weeks.

Sure, if you say so

 

[Chorduroy]

Truthers have a very hard time admitting that they know fire can weaken steel and cause collapse of steel structures. It goes to the core of their belief and to admit it would be to seriously question themselves. Something they steadfastly refuse to do.

It's like having religious faith. It's what you've built your entire world view upon and if it's shaken, you question your very reason for existence. That's why they ignore and discount anything that exposes inconsistencies in their faith.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But I do have several questions, a lot of which should be easy for architects, engineers, and physicists to answer.

Then could I suggest that, instead of making nonsensical statements about "statistically significant jolts" that are very obviously derived from well-known truth movement canards, you try asking those questions?

Putting aside anything to do with intuition and snap judgements, there are only two ways that you could possibly have formed an opinion that jolts should be observed, and are not, in the collapses of the twin towers. One is that you have carried out extensive, but rather poor quality, video analysis on the collapses of the Twin Towers, read Bazant's papers in detail but failed to understand them completely, and drawn some very subtle conclusions. This takes more than two and a half weeks. The other is that you have read the Journal of 9/11 Studies, or something derived from it, and swallowed the garbage it spoon-fed you in its entirety. Either way, these are not "common sense" questions; they're questions that require a relatively thorough and sophisticated understanding of the collapse mechanics to even ask.

But then of course there's your username. Do you honestly think you can come here with a username like "Patriots4Truth", pretend that you're basically undecided about 9/11, and expect to be taken seriously?

Sorry, but the Mark of Woo is strong with this one.

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

wow you are no better than your "twoofers"... "intuition", snap judgments with no evidence etc...

So, you admit that the truthers have no evidence - good start.

The way that we are different, is that we do not believe that the best way to fight for justice is to babble about it on the internet.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Why should anyone was their time arguing engineering and physics with someone who thinks the "floor of collapses" should have led to "statistically significant jolt(s)"

Well my intuition tells me that when the "upper block" hits the "lower block" there is going to be resistance - a bumpy curve of acceleration. We would have to determine what is a statistically significant "bump". A good way to find out what an approximately normal bump would be is to measure the amount of jolt from other steel building collapses during which the moment both upward and downward force is proportional to the upward and downward force of the WTC buildings at the particular moments in time we are looking for (it would be good to get this information from Nist, not just for my jolt experiments but to also calculate whether the collapse of each building happened in a realistic time period for a gravitational/fire collapse). There would be degrees of error, hence the words "statistically significant".