9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Don't be tempted
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:53 am Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Snowygrouch wrote:

1: Structural steel is a fairly ductile brand of steel, there ought to be a twisted mass of girders instead of a pile of short sections. In short to actually cause a girder to fracture would require massive forces which would generally result in very large strain figures to an actual failure.

Large sections. buckling, bending etc.

Quote:

4: Symetry of failure in WTC7: I think ANY engineer must agree that for any structure to fall vertically downwards that really all (or at least the vast majority) of significant structural members must have failed simultainuously (or at least effectively so). This is highly puzzling in this case as the visable damage in terms of debris impact and fire damage is notably asymetric. Any object attempting to move in any direction will always follow the path of least resistance (hence why insulation works in electrical circuits, perhaps not a brilliant analogy but it is correct).

Look at http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208- 8-06.pdf

Explosives engineers determine no explosives were used in any building

Quote:

5: Failure of sprinker and fire control systems in the WTC. Indeed according to the NIST report the sprinklers likely failed due to massive pressure loss as the aircraft probably punctured the supply riser.
However this IGNORES the fact that there were in fact about 20,000 gallons in water tanks in the buildings. This includes tanks in the roof.
According to schematics of the sprinker pipework I posess the tanks are able to supply the system from 4 separate pipes vertically down. Hence Bernollious equation (wrong spelling I know) would still provide substancial pressure just from difference in height regardless of the pressurized mains supply being cut off. Since we know the fires were of a magnitude small enough that a firefighter thought them dampable with water we might ask why the sprinkers didnt work. this is quite without asking why the CO2 or HAYLON systems did not work.

For the sprinklers to work the pipes have to be intact. Being hit by a plane tends to ruin pipes. The sprinklers were designed for office fires, not jet fuel fires. CO2 systems would've killed anyone left alive in the towers, and that's not a desirable outcome, and HALON is not used becuase it is an ozone depleting chemical.

Quote:

6: The speed of the collapses. Especially in terms of WTC7 which is far easier to time accurately than WTC1 and2.

s=ut+0.5at sq.

Gives us about the same time as the fall +/- 10% this is highly irregular as we have very large masses present in terms of floors,walls, and internal columns not accounted for. Again in terms of inertial mass it takes TIME for any mass to begin moving regardless of means. Historical data (never happened before) and the fact the OFFICAL NIST report states this fire hypothesis has only a very low probability of occurance again gives us cause for concern here. The speed is just not practical if 90% of the superstructure is intact.

The towers did not fall too fast. If you actually time them then you can see this. I know it doesn't sound like much of a counter argument, but seeing as your argument is they fell in X seconds, then the fact they didn't disproves this.

Quote:

7: Total destruction: This applies to all WTCs, I HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT STATES THE BUILDINGS MAY NOT HAVE SUFFERED SOME FORM OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE DUE TO PLANE IMPACT!

I would not have been surprised at all if the top sections of the WCT caved in a little or maybe even buckled and detatched!

However this does NOT account for the 80% of the TOTALLY UNDAMAGED structure that would be present below being utterly destroyed.

ALL ENGINEERS design structures with a safey factor. Basically (for those who arent engineers) this means if you design an object with A SF of 5 your object will withstand 5 times your maximum anticipated service load. Now in civil engineering this figure may vary but is generally between 5 and 10.

So in other words the UNDAMAGED portions of the buildings would have withstood between 500 and 1000% the loads caused in a state of maximum service load. Now according to my lecturer this would often mean calculating the service load by calculating the load caused by every floor being at maximum capacity (in terms of body count) while experiencing high winds.

So the fact that the vast majority of undamaged building virtually evaporated in seconds is very ODD to me.

This is expecially true in view of the fact that the clever chap Yamasaki made the core colums taper in thickness so that they would be far thicker at the base than at the top. Obviously in view that the lower loads at the top (less mass above) required less support.

This also adds weight to the argument that the collapse if it occured at all should not have occured at the rate it did or be able to destroy the lower sections.

You fail to take into account the fact that the building was deisgned for static loading vertically. The only dynamic load was wind forces which acted horizontally. Buildings are designed with safety factors in mind but it's hard to design a building that withstands collapsing on itself.

Quote:

8: Loose Change is WRONG!
Steel does not need to get anywhere near melting point to fail when stressed. HOWEVER the official theory of thermal expansion causing the failure of the floor trusses in the foor above from underneath heating makes me raise an eyebrow.

Now for starters the following problems with this theory occur:

8a: The beams were fireproofed
8b:Even though I`m certain a fair bit of insulation was blasted off in impact again we get back to this problem of aysmetric damage causuing symetrical behaviour! How likely is it that the plane blasted off all the insulation over ALL (or 95%) of the beams? Not very, one would expect from the damage report in the NIST report showing the area of plane impact damage on that floor that the damage to fire proofing to be rougly confined to the damage zone. Again we have this problem,
-if the fire insulation was damaged on effectively ONE half of a floor
-if the plane caused 90% of the damage on ONE side of the floor
-if the heating caused truss joint failure because of thermal expansion caused by lack of heatproofing in the damage zone one ONE side of the floor we expect the floor to AT LEAST BEGIN to fail on ONE SIDE!
-Yet all the video evidence I can find shows INITIALLY the collapses are perfectly symetrical.
-I believe the one top section that leans over did so once the collapse was underway. However I`ll have to have a look at the videos again another day, no broadband here!

Now also steel is a farily reasonable conductor of heat (as are all metals) AL, Cu or Beryllium are better but thats by the by. This is in fact ESPECIALLY important in view of the likely exposure of only localised sections of beams to the fire.

Just because we have a FIRE of 600 degrees or even 1000 degrees (which it did not attain by available evidence) does NOT mean the steel is elevated to that temperature. Temperatures are just a relative measurement not some sort of absolute level. Temperature is just a measure of how fast the atoms `dance around` in the atomic structure.
Atoms dancing bumps the ones next to them and then they start moving too. Hence thermal conduction, to get any material capable of conduction very hot THROUGH the entire cross section really requires a "closed system". Or in real terms an OVEN, otherwise the energy escapes (is conducted out or air movement cools the system).

Given hours and hours of exposure to concentrated high temperature fire the beams would have heated significantly but they didnt have hours and hours.

And even then we are just back to if it did how could it create a sytmetrical failure from aysmetric damage!

I think I`ve gone on enough on that point.

You might want to get that broadband connection. There is clear buckling in one side of the first tower to collapse. This was observed by the NYPD helicopter hovering nearby. They saw the top section of the tower tilting by several degrees, and the inside was ablaze. That's why the helicopter pulled away, because the external wall was buckling. You can see it on several videos, the wall buckles, collapses inawards, and then the top section falls. Because one side has fallen downwards, it rips the other side upwards. The top section then collapses because the support is not designed to take such a load in such a way.

Quote:

9: According to anaysis of WTC7 debris there are says S.Jones vapourised sections of steel in the detritus. This is really strange and CANNOT be accounted for reasonably by any other means than an localised event of extremely high pressure and/or extremely high temperatures.
ONE way of explaining that is high explosive, the more destructive grades of which work exactly on that basis (ultra high pressures). Cyclonite for example according to my Enc.Britannica creates a pressure wave of about 9000 feet.sec. And thats a 1960s grade explosive.
Even if you put steel beams in one of our high temp ovens in the labs, heated them to 1400 degrees and beat the hell out of them in a hydraulic press its just going to behave like a warm thermoplastic. Bend, weld itself together under pressure, twist, deform etc. Really vapourization cannot be reproduced without resorting to some really very extreme experimental gear!
At the very least it requires temperatures FAR in excess of those that would likely have been present.

As stated above, explosives experts, who were present at the WTC7 collapse, deny the use of explosives. They were present around manhatten with seismometers for monitoring other construction work in the city. None registered the use of explosives, and they know what they're looking for.

Quote:

10: The vapourization of the pentagon plane. (now dont get me wrong I think A plane hit. Just not of the type alledged). They acually use the word vapourized; its really very poor physics!

Now if you fly a plane into a vast solid block of steel, it will likely come out looking like a large collection of small bits combined with some compressed bits of engine. Its NOT going to vanish.

Now in a high speed impact there is likely to be some small scale localised dinsintegreation on an atomic scale. For example, the extreme tip of the nosecone probably experienced such massive pressures that it utterly vanished, however suggesting that this occured to A WHOLE PLANE is really very silly stuff.

Not least as the pentagon clearly WASNT bahaving like a massive solid block of steel, "cos theres a hole in it see?"
Now evidently there ought to be large bits left over (and there are I believe SOME bits, a wheel, a solitary landing gear, a turbine impeller and 2 sections of airframe about the size of a tea tray). However HOW did they identify all but 5 of the bodies through DNA analysis if 98% of the plane vapourised?

You didn't see the debris scattered across the lawn, and throughout the pentagon? No-one claims it was vaporised. It was very badly damaged, but that's what happens when a 500mph plane hits a wall. It's not going to come out in large pieces, ever.

Quote:

I have NEVER seen a picture of a burned seat frame or even a charred fragment of bone?
Certainly there is evidence a plane hit, but I do not see evidence it was a passenger plane. Where are the seats and baggage (even minute bits of)?

I'm linking to these pictures rather than showing them directly because of the fact that they do show charred corpses. So I'll put a warning here too:

FOLLOWING LINKS SHOW CHARRED CORPSES AND BODY PARTS:

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200042-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200048-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200047-1.jpg

Quote:

The Gov chaps cant have it BOTH ways ok! Either the whole damn thing vapourized except half a dozen little bits or it didnt (by and large) as I said localised vapourization in the main impact points is likely but I`m talking about zones the size of a beer mat.
When the forces transfer the energy is able to be absorbed by deformation see? Only at localised points is disintegration caused by the instant application of large forces unable to be transferred elsewhere concievable.

11: I doubt there was much "steel" in the engines, alot of it is actually nickel "super alloy" which has amazingly good high temperature performance. Probably alot of stainless too. Again err where is it?
Apparently one turbine element is available, I would have imagined we might get corroboration of multiple engines. Unfortunately we cannot tell if the diffuser belongs to that turbine element.

So when they do show you plane parts, you're still not happy? Super alloys may well have amazing high temperature performance, but there aren't many engines designed to hit a wall at 500mph and survive.

Quote:

12: The destruction of evidence, my last point (I cant be arsed to write 15, I think there is enough to get our teeth into here).
That is highly irregular and very un-scientific.
If there had been flight accident reconstructions we could have answers to many questions, even TWA800 which got bloody blown up and sunk was dreged up and put back together in a hanger.

TWA800 never hit anything at 500mph. Being blown up is not the same as hitting something at highspeed. There's a limit to being able to put things back together.

You've failed to answer the points I've highlighted in red. I din't use any maths because there was no need to to prove you wrong.

On the other points: the fire suppression, you concentrated on the argument over when HALON became illegal, but avoided my point that the sprinklers weren't designed to put out a jet fuel fire, and HALON and CO2 only covered server rooms, not the entire building, and the sprinkler systems were badly damaged, if not destroyed, but the plane impact.

As for the bodies, you dismissed them as "unnamed". You wanted bodies, I showed you remains found admist the plane wreckage. The name isn't important, because you would argue that the plane never even hit the pentagon, so they could put any name on the body. The fact is, that's what was left of the bodies. Not a lot.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:15 am Post subject:

Hi lurkers and guests, me again. See what happens when you ask questions? They don't answer and then get all nasty and start questioning your background, and then they try to derail the thread to get out of answering the questions that you asked. If there's so much evidence as they claim, surely they should be able to answer these points. It's not as if I included a lot of maths that needs to be checked through, just a few simple facts. But they can't answer them. What does that say to you?

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

22 minutes Johnny - be patient, most are probably caught up in the current stuff about the london arrests.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject:

IronSnot wrote:

22 minutes Johnny - be patient, most are probably caught up in the current stuff about the london arrests.

It's actually over 24 hours since I posted my response, but he decided to ask me about superchargers instead, because it seems they're more important to him than 9/11.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

IronSnot
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Jul 2006
Posts: 595
Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject:

oh my mistake there. Still there's a lot going on at the moment.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject:

IronSnot wrote:

oh my mistake there.

Still there's a lot going on at the moment.

I agree, a very busy time in the news, but still he spent more time asking about my university, and then quizzing me on superchargers, and then denying that I had a degree, and then posted pictures of weasels. In all that time he could've shown how I was wrong.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

You might also compare this to another thread: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15624#15624 I provided some explanations, but a lot of the responses then degraded to calling me a forum bot, rather than working to refute my responses. _________________ I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:00 am Post subject:

Still no answers... Deduce what you will from this, guests. _________________ I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

Mooter
Minor Poster

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Chester

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:57 am Post subject:

Snowygrouch wrote:

YAYY!!!!

you GOT it!

I AM posting pictures of weasels!

I have loads.

Big ones/small ones/mean ones/cool ones.

Want to see more?

Personally I like this weasel

See its dark eyes and sharp teeth....
_________________
"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton 1887
"Head to head,
chest to chest.
Which country is the very best?
and in the land of rape and honey,
you prey" Al Jourgensen

Mooter
Minor Poster

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Chester

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject:

Actually, being super-serious for a minute I do have this to say. I am not a construction engineer of any kind but I have read the document from implosion world and I have to say, it is rather lame. Also, can't you maybe supply any other material to back up your claims? With reference to an earlier comment about people here only being able to deal with non-sciencey people. I have yet to see many sciencey people posting questions on this board that are then willing to have a reasoned discussion about the questions. JP, you claim to be an engineer but then you resort to insults and such the like once you hear something you don't like. Anyone caring to take a quick look at the (many) posts you have made on this forum can see that really you are just full of sh*t! _________________ "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton 1887 "Head to head, chest to chest. Which country is the very best? and in the land of rape and honey, you prey" Al Jourgensen

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

Mooter wrote:

Actually, being super-serious for a minute I do have this to say. I am not a construction engineer of any kind but I have read the document from implosion world and I have to say, it is rather lame. Also, can't you maybe supply any other material to back up your claims?

With reference to an earlier comment about people here only being able to deal with non-sciencey people. I have yet to see many sciencey people posting questions on this board that are then willing to have a reasoned discussion about the questions. JP, you claim to be an engineer but then you resort to insults and such the like once you hear something you don't like. Anyone caring to take a quick look at the (many) posts you have made on this forum can see that really you are just full of sh*t!

Please explain it's "lameness". Why for instance do you find the CT less lame? Please site your reasons.

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

Mooter
Minor Poster

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Chester

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

Mooter wrote:

Please explain it's "lameness". Why for instance do you find the CT less lame? Please site your reasons.

-z

please refer to this thread
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3072&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=90
as I am not replying to the same question twice
_________________
"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton 1887
"Head to head,
chest to chest.
Which country is the very best?
and in the land of rape and honey,
you prey" Al Jourgensen

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject:

Mooter wrote:

Only one of my claims referred to the implosionworld document. If you would like other evidence for no explosives, then the LDEO stated that no explosives were used based on their seismographic data. You may also want to compare the collapse to the Landmark Tower demolition in Fort Worth, Texas:

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=landmark+tower

Things to note:

1. ripple of explosives with flashes travel up the tower
2. Loud noise accompanying explosives
3. Dust clouds come from every window on a floor, not a random single one.
4. second ripple of explosives with flashes and flames
5. loud noise accompanying explosives
6. building collapses from the base

Compare this to the WTC:

1. no ripple of explosives, no flashes
2. no explosive noise
3. single windows expels dusts
4. no second set of explosives, no flashes, no flames
5. no loud noise
6. building collapses from the top

Notice on the landmark videos how the explosives make more noise than the collapse. This is not an effect of the microphone, eye witnesses report the same:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=1171 &view=findpost&p=23281

Quote:

With reference to an earlier comment about people here only being able to deal with non-sciencey people. I have yet to see many sciencey people posting questions on this board that are then willing to have a reasoned discussion about the questions.

Snowygrouch posed some science questions, but I was able to respond to them without resorting to complicated science because:

a) They didn't need science to answer
b) I try to avoid using maths, when a picture or a few words will do the same, because more people will understand. Part of being a good engineer is being able to get a point across to people who haven't studied engineering.

Quote:

JP, you claim to be an engineer but then you resort to insults and such the like once you hear something you don't like. Anyone caring to take a quick look at the (many) posts you have made on this forum can see that really you are just full of sh*t!

Please show me where I insulted other people instead of responding to their questions? I answered snowygrouch's points, but then HE resulted to insults and questioning where I got my degree from. I never insulted him. He couldn't respond and resorted to posting pictures of weasels.

In actual fact it is the 9/11 denial movement that resorts to posting insults and attacking people's backgrounds instead of answering questions.

Proof?:

The first post by snowy grouch where he asks the question:

snowygrouch wrote:

At last a reasonable response, much better than I have previously recieved.
Thankyou.

Since you ask for a general justification rather than an answer on specific points this will take a certain amount of time as its a fairly broad subject.

We seem to be getting somewhere, this is progress.

I could really do with a ream of paper but I dont have one so here goes. Since I suggested an engineering discussion I will concentrate on those points ALONE.

1: Structural steel is a fairly ductile brand of steel, there ought to be a twisted mass of girders instead of a pile of short sections. In short to actually cause a girder to fracture would require massive forces which would generally result in very large strain figures to an actual failure.

2: This above point is expecially relavent in as far as the NIST report (there are several and I forget which one it was exactly) states that through analysis of paint on the outer box sections of the WTC that no evidence was found of structures exceeding 250 degrees C in the vast majority of specimens. (again I dont have it here as I`m on hols in Scotland but it was someting like 48/50).

3: In fact if you look at yield stress/temperature graphs of lower carbon steels at 250 degrees C the ductility and indeed UTS of the material is in fact higher than that observed at room temperature. Also lending weight to arguments to find at least oddity in the lack of any sections of WTC appearing to exhibit ductile failure. (twisting, necking, bucking etc).

4: Symetry of failure in WTC7: I think ANY engineer must agree that for any structure to fall vertically downwards that really all (or at least the vast majority) of significant structural members must have failed simultainuously (or at least effectively so). This is highly puzzling in this case as the visable damage in terms of debris impact and fire damage is notably asymetric. Any object attempting to move in any direction will always follow the path of least resistance (hence why insulation works in electrical circuits, perhaps not a brilliant analogy but it is correct).

5: Failure of sprinker and fire control systems in the WTC. Indeed according to the NIST report the sprinklers likely failed due to massive pressure loss as the aircraft probably punctured the supply riser.
However this IGNORES the fact that there were in fact about 20,000 gallons in water tanks in the buildings. This includes tanks in the roof.
According to schematics of the sprinker pipework I posess the tanks are able to supply the system from 4 separate pipes vertically down. Hence Bernollious equation (wrong spelling I know) would still provide substancial pressure just from difference in height regardless of the pressurized mains supply being cut off. Since we know the fires were of a magnitude small enough that a firefighter thought them dampable with water we might ask why the sprinkers didnt work. this is quite without asking why the CO2 or HAYLON systems did not work.

6: The speed of the collapses. Especially in terms of WTC7 which is far easier to time accurately than WTC1 and2.

s=ut+0.5at sq.

Gives us about the same time as the fall +/- 10% this is highly irregular as we have very large masses present in terms of floors,walls, and internal columns not accounted for. Again in terms of inertial mass it takes TIME for any mass to begin moving regardless of means. Historical data (never happened before) and the fact the OFFICAL NIST report states this fire hypothesis has only a very low probability of occurance again gives us cause for concern here. The speed is just not practical if 90% of the superstructure is intact.

7: Total destruction: This applies to all WTCs, I HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT STATES THE BUILDINGS MAY NOT HAVE SUFFERED SOME FORM OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE DUE TO PLANE IMPACT!

I would not have been surprised at all if the top sections of the WCT caved in a little or maybe even buckled and detatched!

However this does NOT account for the 80% of the TOTALLY UNDAMAGED structure that would be present below being utterly destroyed.

ALL ENGINEERS design structures with a safey factor. Basically (for those who arent engineers) this means if you design an object with A SF of 5 your object will withstand 5 times your maximum anticipated service load. Now in civil engineering this figure may vary but is generally between 5 and 10.

So in other words the UNDAMAGED portions of the buildings would have withstood between 500 and 1000% the loads caused in a state of maximum service load. Now according to my lecturer this would often mean calculating the service load by calculating the load caused by every floor being at maximum capacity (in terms of body count) while experiencing high winds.

So the fact that the vast majority of undamaged building virtually evaporated in seconds is very ODD to me.

This is expecially true in view of the fact that the clever chap Yamasaki made the core colums taper in thickness so that they would be far thicker at the base than at the top. Obviously in view that the lower loads at the top (less mass above) required less support.

This also adds weight to the argument that the collapse if it occured at all should not have occured at the rate it did or be able to destroy the lower sections.

8: Loose Change is WRONG!
Steel does not need to get anywhere near melting point to fail when stressed. HOWEVER the official theory of thermal expansion causing the failure of the floor trusses in the foor above from underneath heating makes me raise an eyebrow.

Now for starters the following problems with this theory occur:

8a: The beams were fireproofed
8b:Even though I`m certain a fair bit of insulation was blasted off in impact again we get back to this problem of aysmetric damage causuing symetrical behaviour! How likely is it that the plane blasted off all the insulation over ALL (or 95%) of the beams? Not very, one would expect from the damage report in the NIST report showing the area of plane impact damage on that floor that the damage to fire proofing to be rougly confined to the damage zone. Again we have this problem,
-if the fire insulation was damaged on effectively ONE half of a floor
-if the plane caused 90% of the damage on ONE side of the floor
-if the heating caused truss joint failure because of thermal expansion caused by lack of heatproofing in the damage zone one ONE side of the floor we expect the floor to AT LEAST BEGIN to fail on ONE SIDE!
-Yet all the video evidence I can find shows INITIALLY the collapses are perfectly symetrical.
-I believe the one top section that leans over did so once the collapse was underway. However I`ll have to have a look at the videos again another day, no broadband here!

Now also steel is a farily reasonable conductor of heat (as are all metals) AL, Cu or Beryllium are better but thats by the by. This is in fact ESPECIALLY important in view of the likely exposure of only localised sections of beams to the fire.

Just because we have a FIRE of 600 degrees or even 1000 degrees (which it did not attain by available evidence) does NOT mean the steel is elevated to that temperature. Temperatures are just a relative measurement not some sort of absolute level. Temperature is just a measure of how fast the atoms `dance around` in the atomic structure.
Atoms dancing bumps the ones next to them and then they start moving too. Hence thermal conduction, to get any material capable of conduction very hot THROUGH the entire cross section really requires a "closed system". Or in real terms an OVEN, otherwise the energy escapes (is conducted out or air movement cools the system).

Given hours and hours of exposure to concentrated high temperature fire the beams would have heated significantly but they didnt have hours and hours.

And even then we are just back to if it did how could it create a sytmetrical failure from aysmetric damage!

I think I`ve gone on enough on that point.

9: According to anaysis of WTC7 debris there are says S.Jones vapourised sections of steel in the detritus. This is really strange and CANNOT be accounted for reasonably by any other means than an localised event of extremely high pressure and/or extremely high temperatures.
ONE way of explaining that is high explosive, the more destructive grades of which work exactly on that basis (ultra high pressures). Cyclonite for example according to my Enc.Britannica creates a pressure wave of about 9000 feet.sec. And thats a 1960s grade explosive.
Even if you put steel beams in one of our high temp ovens in the labs, heated them to 1400 degrees and beat the hell out of them in a hydraulic press its just going to behave like a warm thermoplastic. Bend, weld itself together under pressure, twist, deform etc. Really vapourization cannot be reproduced without resorting to some really very extreme experimental gear!
At the very least it requires temperatures FAR in excess of those that would likely have been present.

10: The vapourization of the pentagon plane. (now dont get me wrong I think A plane hit. Just not of the type alledged). They acually use the word vapourized; its really very poor physics!

Now if you fly a plane into a vast solid block of steel, it will likely come out looking like a large collection of small bits combined with some compressed bits of engine. Its NOT going to vanish.

Now in a high speed impact there is likely to be some small scale localised dinsintegreation on an atomic scale. For example, the extreme tip of the nosecone probably experienced such massive pressures that it utterly vanished, however suggesting that this occured to A WHOLE PLANE is really very silly stuff.

Not least as the pentagon clearly WASNT bahaving like a massive solid block of steel, "cos theres a hole in it see?"
Now evidently there ought to be large bits left over (and there are I believe SOME bits, a wheel, a solitary landing gear, a turbine impeller and 2 sections of airframe about the size of a tea tray). However HOW did they identify all but 5 of the bodies through DNA analysis if 98% of the plane vapourised?
I have NEVER seen a picture of a burned seat frame or even a charred fragment of bone?
Certainly there is evidence a plane hit, but I do not see evidence it was a passenger plane. Where are the seats and baggage (even minute bits of)?

The Gov chaps cant have it BOTH ways ok! Either the whole damn thing vapourized except half a dozen little bits or it didnt (by and large) as I said localised vapourization in the main impact points is likely but I`m talking about zones the size of a beer mat.
When the forces transfer the energy is able to be absorbed by deformation see? Only at localised points is disintegration caused by the instant application of large forces unable to be transferred elsewhere concievable.

11: I doubt there was much "steel" in the engines, alot of it is actually nickel "super alloy" which has amazingly good high temperature performance. Probably alot of stainless too. Again err where is it?
Apparently one turbine element is available, I would have imagined we might get corroboration of multiple engines. Unfortunately we cannot tell if the diffuser belongs to that turbine element.

12: The destruction of evidence, my last point (I cant be arsed to write 15, I think there is enough to get our teeth into here).
That is highly irregular and very un-scientific.
If there had been flight accident reconstructions we could have answers to many questions, even TWA800 which got bloody blown up and sunk was dreged up and put back together in a hanger.

Unless someone wants to pay me I`m not going to go all S.Jonesey and write a bloody paper with all the calculations. I just dont have time.

My response:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Snowygrouch wrote:
Wonderful.
At last a reasonable response, much better than I have previously recieved.
Thankyou.

Since you ask for a general justification rather than an answer on specific points this will take a certain amount of time as its a fairly broad subject.

We seem to be getting somewhere, this is progress.

I could really do with a ream of paper but I dont have one so here goes. Since I suggested an engineering discussion I will concentrate on those points ALONE.

1: Structural steel is a fairly ductile brand of steel, there ought to be a twisted mass of girders instead of a pile of short sections. In short to actually cause a girder to fracture would require massive forces which would generally result in very large strain figures to an actual failure.

[img]http://img152.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image5za0.jpg
[/img]
Large sections. buckling, bending etc.

Quote:

4: Symetry of failure in WTC7: I think ANY engineer must agree that for any structure to fall vertically downwards that really all (or at least the vast majority) of significant structural members must have failed simultainuously (or at least effectively so). This is highly puzzling in this case as the visable damage in terms of debris impact and fire damage is notably asymetric. Any object attempting to move in any direction will always follow the path of least resistance (hence why insulation works in electrical circuits, perhaps not a brilliant analogy but it is correct).

Look at http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208- 8-06.pdf

Explosives engineers determine no explosives were used in any building

Quote:
5: Failure of sprinker and fire control systems in the WTC. Indeed according to the NIST report the sprinklers likely failed due to massive pressure loss as the aircraft probably punctured the supply riser.
However this IGNORES the fact that there were in fact about 20,000 gallons in water tanks in the buildings. This includes tanks in the roof.
According to schematics of the sprinker pipework I posess the tanks are able to supply the system from 4 separate pipes vertically down. Hence Bernollious equation (wrong spelling I know) would still provide substancial pressure just from difference in height regardless of the pressurized mains supply being cut off. Since we know the fires were of a magnitude small enough that a firefighter thought them dampable with water we might ask why the sprinkers didnt work. this is quite without asking why the CO2 or HAYLON systems did not work.

For the sprinklers to work the pipes have to be intact. Being hit by a plane tends to ruin pipes. The sprinklers were designed for office fires, not jet fuel fires. CO2 systems would've killed anyone left alive in the towers, and that's not a desirable outcome, and HALON is not used becuase it is an ozone depleting chemical.

Quote:
6: The speed of the collapses. Especially in terms of WTC7 which is far easier to time accurately than WTC1 and2.

s=ut+0.5at sq.

Gives us about the same time as the fall +/- 10% this is highly irregular as we have very large masses present in terms of floors,walls, and internal columns not accounted for. Again in terms of inertial mass it takes TIME for any mass to begin moving regardless of means. Historical data (never happened before) and the fact the OFFICAL NIST report states this fire hypothesis has only a very low probability of occurance again gives us cause for concern here. The speed is just not practical if 90% of the superstructure is intact.

The towers did not fall too fast. If you actually time them then you can see this. I know it doesn't sound like much of a counter argument, but seeing as your argument is they fell in X seconds, then the fact they didn't disproves this.
Quote:

7: Total destruction: This applies to all WTCs, I HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT STATES THE BUILDINGS MAY NOT HAVE SUFFERED SOME FORM OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE DUE TO PLANE IMPACT!

I would not have been surprised at all if the top sections of the WCT caved in a little or maybe even buckled and detatched!

However this does NOT account for the 80% of the TOTALLY UNDAMAGED structure that would be present below being utterly destroyed.

ALL ENGINEERS design structures with a safey factor. Basically (for those who arent engineers) this means if you design an object with A SF of 5 your object will withstand 5 times your maximum anticipated service load. Now in civil engineering this figure may vary but is generally between 5 and 10.

So in other words the UNDAMAGED portions of the buildings would have withstood between 500 and 1000% the loads caused in a state of maximum service load. Now according to my lecturer this would often mean calculating the service load by calculating the load caused by every floor being at maximum capacity (in terms of body count) while experiencing high winds.

So the fact that the vast majority of undamaged building virtually evaporated in seconds is very ODD to me.

This is expecially true in view of the fact that the clever chap Yamasaki made the core colums taper in thickness so that they would be far thicker at the base than at the top. Obviously in view that the lower loads at the top (less mass above) required less support.

This also adds weight to the argument that the collapse if it occured at all should not have occured at the rate it did or be able to destroy the lower sections.

You fail to take into account the fact that the building was deisgned for static loading vertically. The only dynamic load was wind forces which acted horizontally. Buildings are designed with safety factors in mind but it's hard to design a building that withstands collapsing on itself.

Quote:
8: Loose Change is WRONG!
Steel does not need to get anywhere near melting point to fail when stressed. HOWEVER the official theory of thermal expansion causing the failure of the floor trusses in the foor above from underneath heating makes me raise an eyebrow.

Now for starters the following problems with this theory occur:

8a: The beams were fireproofed
8b:Even though I`m certain a fair bit of insulation was blasted off in impact again we get back to this problem of aysmetric damage causuing symetrical behaviour! How likely is it that the plane blasted off all the insulation over ALL (or 95%) of the beams? Not very, one would expect from the damage report in the NIST report showing the area of plane impact damage on that floor that the damage to fire proofing to be rougly confined to the damage zone. Again we have this problem,
-if the fire insulation was damaged on effectively ONE half of a floor
-if the plane caused 90% of the damage on ONE side of the floor
-if the heating caused truss joint failure because of thermal expansion caused by lack of heatproofing in the damage zone one ONE side of the floor we expect the floor to AT LEAST BEGIN to fail on ONE SIDE!
-Yet all the video evidence I can find shows INITIALLY the collapses are perfectly symetrical.
-I believe the one top section that leans over did so once the collapse was underway. However I`ll have to have a look at the videos again another day, no broadband here!

Now also steel is a farily reasonable conductor of heat (as are all metals) AL, Cu or Beryllium are better but thats by the by. This is in fact ESPECIALLY important in view of the likely exposure of only localised sections of beams to the fire.

Just because we have a FIRE of 600 degrees or even 1000 degrees (which it did not attain by available evidence) does NOT mean the steel is elevated to that temperature. Temperatures are just a relative measurement not some sort of absolute level. Temperature is just a measure of how fast the atoms `dance around` in the atomic structure.
Atoms dancing bumps the ones next to them and then they start moving too. Hence thermal conduction, to get any material capable of conduction very hot THROUGH the entire cross section really requires a "closed system". Or in real terms an OVEN, otherwise the energy escapes (is conducted out or air movement cools the system).

Given hours and hours of exposure to concentrated high temperature fire the beams would have heated significantly but they didnt have hours and hours.

And even then we are just back to if it did how could it create a sytmetrical failure from aysmetric damage!

I think I`ve gone on enough on that point.

You might want to get that broadband connection. There is clear buckling in one side of the first tower to collapse. This was observed by the NYPD helicopter hovering nearby. They saw the top section of the tower tilting by several degrees, and the inside was ablaze. That's why the helicopter pulled away, because the external wall was buckling. You can see it on several videos, the wall buckles, collapses inawards, and then the top section falls. Because one side has fallen downwards, it rips the other side upwards. The top section then collapses because the support is not designed to take such a load in such a way.

Quote:
9: According to anaysis of WTC7 debris there are says S.Jones vapourised sections of steel in the detritus. This is really strange and CANNOT be accounted for reasonably by any other means than an localised event of extremely high pressure and/or extremely high temperatures.
ONE way of explaining that is high explosive, the more destructive grades of which work exactly on that basis (ultra high pressures). Cyclonite for example according to my Enc.Britannica creates a pressure wave of about 9000 feet.sec. And thats a 1960s grade explosive.
Even if you put steel beams in one of our high temp ovens in the labs, heated them to 1400 degrees and beat the hell out of them in a hydraulic press its just going to behave like a warm thermoplastic. Bend, weld itself together under pressure, twist, deform etc. Really vapourization cannot be reproduced without resorting to some really very extreme experimental gear!
At the very least it requires temperatures FAR in excess of those that would likely have been present.

As stated above, explosives experts, who were present at the WTC7 collapse, deny the use of explosives. They were present around manhatten with seismometers for monitoring other construction work in the city. None registered the use of explosives, and they know what they're looking for.

Quote:
10: The vapourization of the pentagon plane. (now dont get me wrong I think A plane hit. Just not of the type alledged). They acually use the word vapourized; its really very poor physics!

Now if you fly a plane into a vast solid block of steel, it will likely come out looking like a large collection of small bits combined with some compressed bits of engine. Its NOT going to vanish.

Now in a high speed impact there is likely to be some small scale localised dinsintegreation on an atomic scale. For example, the extreme tip of the nosecone probably experienced such massive pressures that it utterly vanished, however suggesting that this occured to A WHOLE PLANE is really very silly stuff.

Not least as the pentagon clearly WASNT bahaving like a massive solid block of steel, "cos theres a hole in it see?"
Now evidently there ought to be large bits left over (and there are I believe SOME bits, a wheel, a solitary landing gear, a turbine impeller and 2 sections of airframe about the size of a tea tray). However HOW did they identify all but 5 of the bodies through DNA analysis if 98% of the plane vapourised?

You didn't see the debris scattered across the lawn, and throughout the pentagon? No-one claims it was vaporised. It was very badly damaged, but that's what happens when a 500mph plane hits a wall. It's not going to come out in large pieces, ever.

Quote:
I have NEVER seen a picture of a burned seat frame or even a charred fragment of bone?
Certainly there is evidence a plane hit, but I do not see evidence it was a passenger plane. Where are the seats and baggage (even minute bits of)?

I'm linking to these pictures rather than showing them directly because of the fact that they do show charred corpses. So I'll put a warning here too:

FOLLOWING LINKS SHOW CHARRED CORPSES AND BODY PARTS:

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200042-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200048-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200047-1.jpg

Quote:

The Gov chaps cant have it BOTH ways ok! Either the whole damn thing vapourized except half a dozen little bits or it didnt (by and large) as I said localised vapourization in the main impact points is likely but I`m talking about zones the size of a beer mat.
When the forces transfer the energy is able to be absorbed by deformation see? Only at localised points is disintegration caused by the instant application of large forces unable to be transferred elsewhere concievable.

11: I doubt there was much "steel" in the engines, alot of it is actually nickel "super alloy" which has amazingly good high temperature performance. Probably alot of stainless too. Again err where is it?
Apparently one turbine element is available, I would have imagined we might get corroboration of multiple engines. Unfortunately we cannot tell if the diffuser belongs to that turbine element.

So when they do show you plane parts, you're still not happy? Super alloys may well have amazing high temperature performance, but there aren't many engines designed to hit a wall at 500mph and survive.

Quote:
12: The destruction of evidence, my last point (I cant be arsed to write 15, I think there is enough to get our teeth into here).
That is highly irregular and very un-scientific.
If there had been flight accident reconstructions we could have answers to many questions, even TWA800 which got bloody blown up and sunk was dreged up and put back together in a hanger.

TWA800 never hit anything at 500mph. Being blown up is not the same as hitting something at highspeed. There's a limit to being able to put things back together.

snowygrouch's response to my debunk:

Quote:

Er WOT.
After asking me to spend time writing an engineering critiqe of the offial version of events and not copy and paste your reply is almost entirely using links and saying "no it isnt".

Sprinkers arnt designed for jet fuel fires?!?!??!?! WOT

Where did you graduate from Pixels?

Fire is HEAT ENERGY, how you create it is utterly irrelavent.

Halon isnt used? Err why dont you read the NIST report that states the buildings had CO2, Halon and sprinkers.

There are companies all over the world with websites that install halon suppressant systems.

Water ABSORBS that head energy as it has a very high LATENT HEAT CAPACITY.

Do you even know what latent heat capacity means?

To be honest I was hoping for a formiddable response from a graduate engineer.

Instead I`ve got a response that illustrates you clearly know NOTHING about mechanical engineering.

Either that or you are lying.

Go back to playing Counterstrike and reading Ton Clancy novels before you embarrass yourself further.

I`m actually dismally dissapointed. Crying or Very sad

I highlighted insults/attacks on me in red, and things that were wrong in orange.

And that was his response. He ignored the majority of my post, and decided he'd try and insult me instead. He made further posts, but again insulted, and got more things wrong, and then posted pictures of weasels.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

Mooter
Minor Poster

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Chester

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject:

The guy went to all the effort to produce a comprehensive list of problems with the official story, not cutting and pasting as you specifically requested. Then you respond with one liners that don't really prove anything! Personally I think the way he dealt with you was fair. _________________ "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton 1887 "Head to head, chest to chest. Which country is the very best? and in the land of rape and honey, you prey" Al Jourgensen

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject:

Mooter wrote:

The guy went to all the effort to produce a comprehensive list of problems with the official story, not cutting and pasting as you specifically requested. Then you respond with one liners that don't really prove anything! Personally I think the way he dealt with you was fair.

He claimed that the steel came down in straight, short sections. A photograph of a large buckled section shows this was not the case. He failed to actually show that the steel came down in short sections, he just said it did. I actually showed that it didn't

He claimed that WTC 7 failed suspiciously symmetrically. I didn't really deal with this point adequately, but he never bothered to raise this. However, the centre of the building was damaged, and so when this collapsed, it pulled the sides in. It indeed did follow the path of least resistance, and that was inwards, because debris from the twin towers had gouged a huge hole in the face of the building

The next claim was related to fire sprinklers. He seemed to suggest that the water based sprinklers would have worked on a jet fuel fire. This needed no science as such to prove wrong, as you well know yourself, you don't use water on petrol or oil fires, because they float on water, and so spread the fire further. He also suggested CO2 and HALON extinguishers. These are specialised and only used to protect things like computer servers, paintings etc, things that are highly valuble and easily damaged by water. I think you'll agree that the whole of the WTC was not a computer server room, and it was not an art gallery, therefore it would not have been protected to any great extent by these systems. I'm not saying there were no such systems in the WTC, but they would have been limited to the server rooms. Typically there is one such room for each floor, or for each company on each floor. There is also the problem of the plane impact. Sprinkler systems are designed for office type fires, and will not withstand an plane impact. Even if the plane burst the pipes, then the water would just flow out of the pipe, and be acting on any fire other than in the immediate area of the burst.

The next claim was of the buildings falling too fast. I made a one line rebuttal, but that is because it is simply not true. Even buildings that are demolised by explosives do not fall at speeds "faster than freefall". The only downward force that acts on a building collapsing is gravity. Even explosives won't make a building fall faster, because all they do is weaken the structure. I realise that the WTC should have fallen slightly slower because it did not have a weakened structure, and the reality is IT DID. The freefall rate for the top of the tower would be around 10 seconds, and the tower fell in over 15 seconds. That means it fell at over half the freefall rate. The resistance of the tower slowed its fall by half. So you see there was resistance.

The next claim is often made, that buildings have safety factors. This is very true, buildings have safety factors to keep them standing, in the same way that automobiles have saefty factors to keep you alive if you were to crash, However, to suggest that these safety factors are sufficient to withstand the top of the building dropping into itself is like saying your automobile ahould be able to withstand it's engine block being dropped onto it and still work. Safety factors have their limits, otherwise no building would ever fall down.

The next point was on the steel, and being heated. To bend steel requires energy. Imagine a paperclip. You can bend it using your fingers. If you keep bending it back and forth till it snaps, and then feel the broken ends, they will be ever so slightly warm. This is because you have put energy in to break the paper clip. Heat is a form of energy. This means another way to bend the paper clip is to heat it up, and then apply the fore with your fingers. Now the paperclip bends more easily, because it already has more energy, so you have to put less in with your fingers. Again, if you bend it too much, it will break. Now I know exactly what you're thinking. A paper clip is nothing like a structural steel beam! Well yes and no. The makeup of the steels in each are slightly different, and one is a hell of a lot bigger. But then if you think about it, a paper clip has to hold paper, and a steel beam HAS to be that big because it's supporting several thousand tonnes of building. It's not like we're using that beam to hold paper, we're seriously stressing it with this weight, although as mentioned above, it has safety limits. Unfortunately, those safety limits include the fact that the beam shares the load with the perimeter columns, and those perimeter columns have been smashed by an aircraft, whose fuel is now heating up the steel. This means that extra load, on the limit of, or beyond that designed for in the safety factor is being put on that beam. Taht beam is also being heated, which, like the paperclip, makes it easier to bend. That means that eventually the beam bends, but once it does, then the amount of load it can carry DECREASES. So now it can hold even less load, but the load stays the same, so it bends more, and the amount it can hold DECREASES, and this very quickly leads to the beam failing.

The next claim is to do with explosives. The problem with claiming explosives is that you need to be able to show how they would be moved into position in the towers, otherwise, I could just say "men with chainsaws cut the towers". That wouldn't be valid, because chainsaws don't cut steel, and no chainsaws were taken into the towers. I can't claim somthing was used UNLESS I can prove it would be feasible to use it. In the case of explosives there are many factors against their feasiblity. I'm assuming that people believe the explosives were pre-planted, and not rushed in after the impacts. This means that, without anyone noticing, men had to get access to the core columns, and the connecting links to the floors. Without anyone noticing is problem 1. People worked in the WTC, but no-one noticed anyone stripping out sections of walls, working in the elevators, coming into offices, moving desks, any of that. That would be needed, because the core columns are fireproofed. They're not easy to get to with no-one noticing. Some people suggest it was don during power downs. There is a snag here. The power down claimed, occured in one half, of one tower. That doesn't give any time for the other tower to be rigged, or the WTC7 to be rigged. The next problem is with the pattern of the collapse. It clearly initiates at the top, where the planes impacted. However, there was also clearly a huge explosion at the time of the impact. Explosives would not survive this kind of explosion, the dentonating mechanisms would not survive this either. That means that the collapse cannot have been initiated by explosives, because they simply would not have survived. There were numerous demolitions experts in manhatten on 9/11. They were monitoring other building projects for safety reasons, and they had seismometers with them. They know what explosions look like, and they never registered a single one. There are claims that "squib" or cluds of dust shooting out of windows show explosive blasts. They are in fact due to air pressure. If there were explosives then the shockwave would blast out several windows. If it were aire pressure then the once one window had gone, then that would release the pressure through that window. On 9/11, only single windows expelled dust clouds.

The next claim refers to the vaporisatoin of the pentagon plane. The fact is, the official story does not even claim this. It is a lie from the CT community. The official story does not claim this because they recovered the majority of the plane. The pieces are small, because aircraft are not designed to withstand 500mph impacts with solid walls.

The next request was for pictures of charred bone, or bodies. I linked several images of body fragments.

Then he suggested that the engines should have survived, but as I said above, no one is claiming they were vaporised, they're simply not designed to withstand a 500mph impact with a wall.

And the final point was on TWA 800, which he says they pieced together after it being blown apart, sunk, and recovered. This is not similar at all, because TWA 800 never hit a brick wall at 500mph.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

The freefall rate for the top of the tower would be around 10 seconds, and the tower fell in over 15 seconds. That means it fell at over half the freefall rate. The resistance of the tower slowed its fall by half. So you see there was resistance.

Did you not look at page 305 of the official report of 9/11?

You may claim that I agree with the official report. The fact is I dont. The 9/11 Commission can't disagree with what millions of other people saw.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:43 am Post subject:

scubadiver wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

But the 9/11 commission didn't deal with the mechanics of the collapse, NIST did. It doesn't matter if they get the time right or not, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the rest of the report.

And yes, I do still find it ironic that you choose the official report to prove itself wrong.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:01 am Post subject:

Er, no Mr Pixels. NIST did NOT deal with the collapse. It only investigated up until "collapse initiation". In other words, they only studied up until the collapse began. They left the rest up to...er...god, or whatever. _________________ "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -William James

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:08 am Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Er, no Mr Pixels. NIST did NOT deal with the collapse. It only investigated up until "collapse initiation". In other words, they only studied up until the collapse began. They left the rest up to...er...god, or whatever.

NIST did deal with post collapse initiation events.

ETA:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Page 319 of the report, section 9.3.3 "Events Following Collapse Initiation"
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:22 am Post subject:

Oh yes, i forgot. An interesting piece of work. My favourite part is the bit where they warn against the keeping of hamsters within steel framed buildings. Something dreary about vermin chewing on central columns is generally something to be avioded. Cute, yes. Furry, absolutely. SAFE, no way!! And again, i hate to burst your bubble but that report does NOT deal with events after collapse. It only covers "collapse initiation". The closest it gets to actually covering the physics of the ENTIRE collapse is in the section 9.3.3 - Events Following collapse Initiation. It is three paragraphs long and contains NO data on callapse following collapse initiation. _________________ "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -William James

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:45 am Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Oh yes, i forgot. An interesting piece of work.
My favourite part is the bit where they warn against the keeping of hamsters within steel framed buildings. Something dreary about vermin chewing on central columns is generally something to be avioded. Cute, yes. Furry, absolutely. SAFE, no way!!

And again, i hate to burst your bubble but that report does NOT deal with events after collapse. It only covers "collapse initiation". The closest it gets to actually covering the physics of the ENTIRE collapse is in the section 9.3.3 - Events Following collapse Initiation. It is three paragraphs long and contains NO data on callapse following collapse initiation.

The lower mass of the building was unable to dissipate the energy of the falling mass of the top of the building. What kind of data would you like? If if the first floor below the collapse zone couldn't stop the mass of the building above, then how is the next floor down going to stop the same mass, plus the mass of that first floor as well? How is the next floor going to stop the mass of the top section plus the next two floors? Would you like NIST to do 90 odd sets of momentum equations to state the obvious? They investigated the events up to the initiation because it was not clear what had happened. Once the collapse started is was clear what was happening.

Once again, you cannot invoke explosives as an explanation if you cannot explain how they got there, or how they survived the impact of the planes. I will NOT accept powerdowns because:

a) There is no evidence for them, you can't invoke powerdowns as an argument if you cannot show they actually happened
b) The alleged powerdown occured in one half of one tower. You cannot invoke powerdowns as an explanation if you cannot explain how having one half of one tower empty lets you plant explosives in 3 whole buildings.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:11 am Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Once the collapse started is was clear what was happening.

What?

So basically what you are saying is "we dont need to investigate what happened after the collapse began because we already know."

Sorry, but i would LOVE to know what the official explanation is (NOT your interpretation but an OFFICIAL STUDY) for exactly how the lower floors and central collumns that were not damaged or weakened by fire were able to crumble to pieces.
Your assertion that "we already know" is not good enough.

That report, as i said, did NOT study how the entire building collapsed. It only studied collapse initiation. For you to say that we do not need to study what happened after the collapse because we already know is the same as saying we do not need to study why the fires caused collapse initiation because we already know that it was fires that caused the collapse.
Nonsense. And NOT good enough.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Once again, you cannot invoke explosives as an explanation if you cannot explain how they got there, or how they survived the impact of the planes.

I didnt invoke anything. I was making the point that the NIST report does not cover why the buildings fell.
Dont change the subject.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

a) There is no evidence for them, you can't invoke powerdowns as an argument if you cannot show they actually happened
b) The alleged powerdown occured in one half of one tower. You cannot invoke powerdowns as an explanation if you cannot explain how having one half of one tower empty lets you plant explosives in 3 whole buildings.

Please, dont change the subject. We are not talking about powerdowns. We are talking about the NIST report.

If you wish to move on to another subject, please first admit that the NIST report does not cover why the buildings fell, only why they began to fall. THEN we can move on to other subjects.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:38 am Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Once the collapse started is was clear what was happening.

The NIST report clearly says that the lower portions of the building were unable to dissipate the energy from the falling mass of the upper section. That's what destroyed it.

Quote:

That report, as i said, did NOT study how the entire building collapsed. It only studied collapse initiation. For you to say that we do not need to study what happened after the collapse because we already know is the same as saying we do not need to study why the fires caused collapse initiation because we already know that it was fires that caused the collapse.
Nonsense. And NOT good enough.

Not really, because we didn't know how collapse initiation was reached. We do know that it was the falling mass of the top of the building that knocked the rest down. And NIST looked into explosives and found no evidence. It's hard to write a lot about nothing.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Once again, you cannot invoke explosives as an explanation if you cannot explain how they got there, or how they survived the impact of the planes.

I didnt invoke anything. I was making the point that the NIST report does not cover why the buildings fell.
Dont change the subject.

This is part of the subject. The NIST report specifically mentions explosives NOT being part of the collapse. I also find it ironic that you ask me not to change the subject, but when snowygrouch decided to go off on a wild tangent about my university, everyone in the 9/11 denial movement thought this was acceptable.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Please, dont change the subject. We are not talking about powerdowns. We are talking about the NIST report.

This was related to the explosives argument, from above, and explosives were mentioned in the section of the NIST report the we are discussing.

Quote:

If you wish to move on to another subject, please first admit that the NIST report does not cover why the buildings fell, only why they began to fall. THEN we can move on to other subjects.

It does cover why they fell. They continued to fall because NIST adequately showed how they began to fall, and then also stated that the building was unable to disperse the energy involved in the top sections falling. Do you really want an analysis of every single floor?

Let's go:

Floor 94, structure was unable to dissipate energy of falling mass above it, and so was overloaded and collapsed.
Floor 93, structure was unable to dissipate energy of falling mass above it, and so was overloaded and collapsed.
Floor 92, structure was unable to dissipate energy of falling mass above it, and so was overloaded and collapsed...
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:25 am Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

scubadiver wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

I hope you do realise I am not talking about the mechanics of the collapse. I am talking about the time it took to collapse. Two different things IMO.

Since the 9/11 Commission was set up after the event, they had to look at all the evidence. TV footage is evidence they can't ignore, so they have to agree the buildings collapsed in ten seconds.

I did notice you stated that the towers collapsed in over 15 seconds.

How can you reconcile that with proposition you put forward that you offer the official report as evidence if you disagree with the Commission on this one point

So are you disagreeing with ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in the official report simply based on this one point?

Because that is what you are implying about my statements.

Last edited by scubadiver on Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:11 pm; edited 3 times in total

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:33 am Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

The NIST report clearly says that the lower portions of the building were unable to dissipate the energy from the falling mass of the upper section. That's what destroyed it.

Is this modelled?
No.
Is this explained in any way?
No.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Not really, because we didn't know how collapse initiation was reached. We do know that it was the falling mass of the top of the building that knocked the rest down.

You "know". Really? Seems like an assumtion to me.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

And NIST looked into explosives and found no evidence. It's hard to write a lot about nothing.

WHEN in this conversation did i even mention explosives?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

This is part of the subject.

And so is Northwoods, but we are not talking about that are we? Again i have to explain what is here is simple english;

I was making the point that the NIST report only studied up to collapse initiation. Do you understand this?
I am NOT talking about explosives.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

I also find it ironic that you ask me not to change the subject, but when snowygrouch decided to go off on a wild tangent about my university, everyone in the 9/11 denial movement thought this was acceptable.

WHAT??!!??
What on earth does that have to do with me???!!??
I dont care what snowygrouch said or didnt say. It has no baring whatsoever on this conversation. And to say that "everyone in the 911 denial movement thought this was acceptable" is a little presumtios is it not? After all, i dont even KNOW what converstaion you are refering to.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

This was related to the explosives argument, from above, and explosives were mentioned in the section of the NIST report the we are discussing.

sigh..
Again, i am not talking about explosives. I am talking about how there is no data in the NIST report concerning the collapse AFTER collapse initiation.
If you want to have a discussion on explosives, fine. But that would happen to be a different conversation than the one we are having.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

It does cover why they fell.

Where exactly?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

They continued to fall because NIST adequately showed how they began to fall,

And you call that logic?
So...if i throw a ball in to the air it will keep going because it began to go up?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

and then also stated that the building was unable to disperse the energy involved in the top sections falling.

Please point me to where this is modelled, or even studied outside of this generalised assumtion.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

The NIST report clearly says that the lower portions of the building were unable to dissipate the energy from the falling mass of the upper section. That's what destroyed it.

Is this modelled?
No.
Is this explained in any way?
No.

It's explained adequately by physics. The building was never designed to have the rst of the building fall on it. No building is, otherwise buildings would never fall down, would they?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Not really, because we didn't know how collapse initiation was reached. We do know that it was the falling mass of the top of the building that knocked the rest down.

You "know". Really? Seems like an assumtion to me.

Ok, explain to me what knocked the building down then.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

And NIST looked into explosives and found no evidence. It's hard to write a lot about nothing.

WHEN in this conversation did i even mention explosives?

Explosives are mentioned in the post that I was rebutting, and in the section of the NIST report we are discussing. If you now wish to deny that explosives were used, please take this opportunity to do it.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

This is part of the subject.

Northwoods isn't part of the subject. Northwoods does not affect physics, Northwoods did not make the towers fall. Northwoods is not mentioned in the NIST report.

The NIST report did study after the collapse initiation. That's why they have a section on it.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Don't blame me if you haven't followed this thread. I'll recap.

Snowygrouch asked me some questions, I gave him answers, he didn't like them and resorted to insults. I was then told by mooter that I had resorted to insults instead of answering him, so I provided another explanation of why his points were wrong. At this point you jumped in. Yes I agree to say that everyone found this acceptable is a very generalised, sweeping statement, but seeing as I am only allowed to post in a corner of the forum for fear of upsetting the rest, I think it is justified.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

This was related to the explosives argument, from above, and explosives were mentioned in the section of the NIST report the we are discussing.

I'd rather not talk about explosives, because it's a tired subject that's already been proved wrong.

What data would you expect to be in the NIST report about AFTER collapse initiation?

From the NIST WTC website

"This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings; whether the fatalities were low or high, including an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the towers; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision."

It was an investigation into how collapse was initiated, and how in the future collapses could be prevented from being initiated. Once the collapse begins, then that's the limit of the aim of the report. Once collapse begins it doesn't matter how far it goes, even if the top of the tower rolled right off, the building still collapsed.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

It does cover why they fell.

Where exactly?

Where it says the building could not dissipate the energy of the falling mass above it. That's why if you crash a car into a brick wall it crumples. The crumple zone dissipates the kinetic energy of the crash by deforming. The building had no crumple zones. It could not dissipate the energy by deforming. The deformation resulted in collapse.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

They continued to fall because NIST adequately showed how they began to fall,

And you call that logic?
So...if i throw a ball in to the air it will keep going because it began to go up?

If you throw it hard enough it will.

But on a serious note, no, because gravity will bring it down, just like gravity brought the towers down.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

and then also stated that the building was unable to disperse the energy involved in the top sections falling.

Please point me to where this is modelled, or even studied outside of this generalised assumtion.

The WTC is a static structure, designed to take static loads, that is, it holds weight that stays the same. (It took a dynamic load in the case of winds, but they acted horizontally, and compared to the forces involved in a collapse, they're neglible). Because of this, the Towers had no shock absorbing structure to dispose of energy in the case of a collapse. Imagine an egg, or better still, go get one out of the fridge. You've probably seen that eggs are in fact very strong, especially end on. It'll take quite a bit of pressure end on to break that egg. But drop it from a small height above a solid surface and it'll break. The egg has no way of deforming sufficiently to disperse the energy from the impact. It has a rigid shell, which makes it strong when you try to break it by applying pressure, but because it is strong in that way, it doesn't bend, so instead the energy breaks the shell when you drop it.

This kind of thing isn't mentioned in the NIST report in any detail because the report isn't designed to teach people engineering physics. It doesn't need to be modelled, for the same reason that people don't go modelling eggs to see if they'll break.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject:

I really cant be bothered with this. You think i'm mad for thinking that the towers fell from explosive demolition. I think your mad for believing that the towers fell according to the official story. I've never seen anything that has convinced me the official story is true and i know already that you certainly will not provide me with anything that will, so thats that. I could point out all the things in your last post that i disagree with but i really dont see the point. _________________ "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -William James

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

It could not dissipate the energy by deforming.

What kind of energy are you talking about and where does it originate?

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject:

scubadiver wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

It could not dissipate the energy by deforming.

What kind of energy are you talking about and where does it originate?

As the fire heats the steel, and the load of the upper section acts on the support beams, they deform. The more they deform, the less load they can take, this eventually leads to buckling. This is a sudden phenomenon, because there is a point where the ability to support the load ceases, and the support fails. It is not a gentle droop, but a sudden fall. This converts the gravitational potential energy, due to the height above ground, to kinetic energy. The rest of the building has to convert this kinetic energy into another form, because it can't go back to GPE, because it has lost height. It can be converted by putting energy into the rest of the building, by deforming it, and as I mentioned, this is how car crumple zones work, but the building is designed specifically to NOT deform, because it is a building and has to hold a weight. If it doesn't deform, then it breaks, and the energy is released as heat and sound.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject:

Call me stupid (you have done plenty of times), but haven't you contradicted yourself?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

As the fire heats the steel, and the load of the upper section acts on the support beams, they deform. The more they deform, the less load they can take, this eventually leads to buckling.

then you say

Johnny Pixels wrote:

but the building is designed specifically to NOT deform, because it is a building and has to hold a weight.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum