beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I know. Would be nice of Jazzz to admit that, yet again, he's just posted up the first crap he could find without doing any basic background checks.Crispy said:
9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
editor
hiraethified
I'm sure Jazzz will be along soon to tell us all about the top secret Suicide Security gang employed by the CIA. Or maybe he'll cook up some nonsense that they all secretly left the building just before the planes hit (and no one noticed, naturally).MikeMcc said:
Whatever he comes up with, you can guarantee it'll be as likely as a cheese fondue party on the Moon.
Jazzz said:
Point 1) Marvin Bush left as director of that security firm in 2000.
Point 2) Above point took nearly 60 seconds to find out.
Point 3) Jazzz will quote any old selective shit that seems to back up his delusions. Every single aspect of the "official version" must be investigated and pulled to pieces. Missing pieces are evidence of conspiracy, whilst "appearance on the internet" is sufficient criteria for evidence that he feels supports his delusions.
I think Jazzz would get a lot more respect (at least from me) if he came out and said something along the lines of "I think there was CD of WTC, and although I don't have any evidence, this is what I think".
Ask him if anyone asked him if he could do them a favour by carrying in a few tons of explosives and a few miles of wiring whilst he was there (especially if he noticed it was invisible ...)cesare said:
How do you know about that ...editor said:
TheArchitect
New Member
Structures For Beginners and CTers
Ahh, such confidence. It almost seems a shame to have to bring us all back to planet Earth and point out the many, many ways which Jazz gets this all wong.
Firstly it may be helpful (not least for Jazz) if we briefly cover the mechanical properties of structural steel. In particular we need to understand the difference between yield point or strength (there are minor differences which ar enot particularly relevant to this discussion) and tensile strength.
Yield Pointis the load at which a material begins to plastically deform. Prior to the yield point the material will deform elastically, returning to its original shape when the load is removed. However once the yield point is passed the deformation will be permanent. The yield point is vital when designing structural steelwrok since it generally represents the upper load limit.
A yield failure will not necessarily result in rapid structural failure, however resistance to buckling will typically decrease. As loads continue to rise beyond yield point, there is an increasing risk of wider failure.
Tensile Strength is quite different. As the name suggests, it is the maximum load which the material can sustain in tension before it fractures and fails. As steel approaches tensile failure it will deform, concentrating the tensile loads across a smaller area and increasing the risk of failure.
Amongst a long list other properties which we need to take account of are shear, where forces are acting parallel to the component (tensile and compressive forces being in the same plane). So, for example, bolt or splice failures might typically be due to shear.
The steel specified at WTC typically had a yield value of 36ksi however like many materials it has a natural variability; depending upon quality of materials, manufacture, and the like there can be significant variations even within one component. 36ksi should therefore be considered as a minimum value.
NIST tested the steel recovered from WTC (which in itself is of interest, as CTers usually claim it was all whisked away to China with unseemly haste). NIST NCS STAR 1-3D (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05158.pdf) confirms a range of actual values:
- Core webs ranged from as low as 31.1 to 41.9 ksi, ie. 86 to 116% of specificed strength.
- Core flanges ranged from 32.4 to a high 53.4 ksi, ie. 90 to 146% of specified strength.
Setting to one side the 31.1 and 32.4 ksi results, inasmuch as a small proprtion of columns below failure point are unlikely to lead to any wider problem, let's take the lower maximum of 116% specified value.
Now, the NIST Demand to Capacity Ratios (DCR) are based upon specified strengths and NIST themselves note that there is effectively spare capacity up to actual (but varying) yield point/strength.
Core columns in WTC typically had a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 0.83, ie a safety factor of 1/0.83=1.20. Now let's assume assume that the steel has an additional 16% beyond minimum yield value. This would reduce the DCR to 1.16/.83=1.4.
In other words we could increase the loads in these areas by up to 40% before yield point was reached and plastic (permanent) deformation begins. Of course this figure has lots of variables - most of the steel webs did not have such a high yield factor, some areas had DCRs well in excess of 0.83, and so on.
What we don't do is then add an additional allowance for tensile strength because (a) yield failure is already occuring and (b) gravity loads will be compressive, not tensile.
One thing we also have to appreciate is that the structure of WTC is complex; in addition to dead and live loads, it will be dealing with (for example) transverse and shear loadings from the wind. There will be a degree of torsion due to differential loading. And so on. We would therefore have to look at the exact steelwork design in considerable detail before we could determine a safety factor for each. That's why engineers earn a lot of cash, and why complex modelling software was developed.
Nevertheless it is clear that the actual capacity of the core is not going to be anything like 200% before irreversible damage and failure begin to occur.
So where does Jazz actually go wrong?
Well firstly there's no evidence (as far as I can see) that the designers would have added on an "extra" 15% to core loadings - it's just Jazz's guess, and little weight can be attached to the figure.
1/DCR is correct, which is more than can be said for yield point. Jazz has carefully ignored the test figures from the NIST report, which provide hard data.
Thereafter we lapse into a rather strange world where tensile strength is applied to a compressive load failure (ie. additional weight being transferred to the core columns).
And that's before we notice Jazz's new (and unsubstantiated) claim that the purpose of the hat trusses was not to restribute wind loadings betwixt external envelope and core, but also to "hold up" the former when it contracted during cold weather.
Where does this take us?
- There is no substantiated for Jazz's claim of 600% core redundancy
- Jazz' revised calculations giving figures of 386% to 585% are wrong
But in any event the above calculations all assume an intact core, and we know from the various NIST studies and eyewitness evidence that the cores suffered damage - around a third. This will obviously have reduced loadbearing capacity still further, and a simple pro-rata reduction of (say) 30% is likely to be wrong because the damage is concentrated in localised areas and hence these areas will be susceptible to accelerated failure under loads.
I shall, as ever, await Jazz's next attempt to display his intuitive grasp of mechanics and structures with the greatest of interest.
Edited: Clarity/wording
Jazzz said:
Ahh, such confidence. It almost seems a shame to have to bring us all back to planet Earth and point out the many, many ways which Jazz gets this all wong.
Firstly it may be helpful (not least for Jazz) if we briefly cover the mechanical properties of structural steel. In particular we need to understand the difference between yield point or strength (there are minor differences which ar enot particularly relevant to this discussion) and tensile strength.
Yield Pointis the load at which a material begins to plastically deform. Prior to the yield point the material will deform elastically, returning to its original shape when the load is removed. However once the yield point is passed the deformation will be permanent. The yield point is vital when designing structural steelwrok since it generally represents the upper load limit.
A yield failure will not necessarily result in rapid structural failure, however resistance to buckling will typically decrease. As loads continue to rise beyond yield point, there is an increasing risk of wider failure.
Tensile Strength is quite different. As the name suggests, it is the maximum load which the material can sustain in tension before it fractures and fails. As steel approaches tensile failure it will deform, concentrating the tensile loads across a smaller area and increasing the risk of failure.
Amongst a long list other properties which we need to take account of are shear, where forces are acting parallel to the component (tensile and compressive forces being in the same plane). So, for example, bolt or splice failures might typically be due to shear.
The steel specified at WTC typically had a yield value of 36ksi however like many materials it has a natural variability; depending upon quality of materials, manufacture, and the like there can be significant variations even within one component. 36ksi should therefore be considered as a minimum value.
NIST tested the steel recovered from WTC (which in itself is of interest, as CTers usually claim it was all whisked away to China with unseemly haste). NIST NCS STAR 1-3D (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05158.pdf) confirms a range of actual values:
- Core webs ranged from as low as 31.1 to 41.9 ksi, ie. 86 to 116% of specificed strength.
- Core flanges ranged from 32.4 to a high 53.4 ksi, ie. 90 to 146% of specified strength.
Setting to one side the 31.1 and 32.4 ksi results, inasmuch as a small proprtion of columns below failure point are unlikely to lead to any wider problem, let's take the lower maximum of 116% specified value.
Now, the NIST Demand to Capacity Ratios (DCR) are based upon specified strengths and NIST themselves note that there is effectively spare capacity up to actual (but varying) yield point/strength.
Core columns in WTC typically had a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 0.83, ie a safety factor of 1/0.83=1.20. Now let's assume assume that the steel has an additional 16% beyond minimum yield value. This would reduce the DCR to 1.16/.83=1.4.
In other words we could increase the loads in these areas by up to 40% before yield point was reached and plastic (permanent) deformation begins. Of course this figure has lots of variables - most of the steel webs did not have such a high yield factor, some areas had DCRs well in excess of 0.83, and so on.
What we don't do is then add an additional allowance for tensile strength because (a) yield failure is already occuring and (b) gravity loads will be compressive, not tensile.
One thing we also have to appreciate is that the structure of WTC is complex; in addition to dead and live loads, it will be dealing with (for example) transverse and shear loadings from the wind. There will be a degree of torsion due to differential loading. And so on. We would therefore have to look at the exact steelwork design in considerable detail before we could determine a safety factor for each. That's why engineers earn a lot of cash, and why complex modelling software was developed.
Nevertheless it is clear that the actual capacity of the core is not going to be anything like 200% before irreversible damage and failure begin to occur.
So where does Jazz actually go wrong?
Well firstly there's no evidence (as far as I can see) that the designers would have added on an "extra" 15% to core loadings - it's just Jazz's guess, and little weight can be attached to the figure.
1/DCR is correct, which is more than can be said for yield point. Jazz has carefully ignored the test figures from the NIST report, which provide hard data.
Thereafter we lapse into a rather strange world where tensile strength is applied to a compressive load failure (ie. additional weight being transferred to the core columns).
And that's before we notice Jazz's new (and unsubstantiated) claim that the purpose of the hat trusses was not to restribute wind loadings betwixt external envelope and core, but also to "hold up" the former when it contracted during cold weather.
Where does this take us?
- There is no substantiated for Jazz's claim of 600% core redundancy
- Jazz' revised calculations giving figures of 386% to 585% are wrong
But in any event the above calculations all assume an intact core, and we know from the various NIST studies and eyewitness evidence that the cores suffered damage - around a third. This will obviously have reduced loadbearing capacity still further, and a simple pro-rata reduction of (say) 30% is likely to be wrong because the damage is concentrated in localised areas and hence these areas will be susceptible to accelerated failure under loads.
I shall, as ever, await Jazz's next attempt to display his intuitive grasp of mechanics and structures with the greatest of interest.
Edited: Clarity/wording
55 pages, my word what has got into you editor??
Or is this the new way of dealing with 911 threads, just let one of them go on and on, thereby avoiding others from starting up and getting too close to the bone...?
More seriously though, i don't really think there's any mileage left in them whatsoever unless and until the mass media take up the story. Nothing new, hate to agree with you, but nothing new on this topic at all.
Bin it mate.
Or is this the new way of dealing with 911 threads, just let one of them go on and on, thereby avoiding others from starting up and getting too close to the bone...?
More seriously though, i don't really think there's any mileage left in them whatsoever unless and until the mass media take up the story. Nothing new, hate to agree with you, but nothing new on this topic at all.
Bin it mate.
editor
hiraethified
Whatever for? This is one of the very, very few 9/11 threads where things are actually being examined scientifically and methodically with (some) people who actually know what they're talking about.fela fan said:
Still had no answer as to how these invisible explosives worked, mind.
editor said:
Are the people who know what they're talking about against the theory of lihop or mihop??!
And yes, i'd say 55 pages constitutes a 'methodical' working over of things.
Anyway, i'd better bow out as quickly as i came in. Nothing new to add for me...
[those damn yanks done it.]
Maybe, just maybe, there are some poeple who are approaching the issue with an open mind, examining what happened from a sound investigative, scientific direction, basing their hypotheses on facts which are considered for reliability.fela fan said:
As opposed to deciding what they are "for" or "against" and then setting out to prove how right they are ...
TheArchitect
New Member
WouldBe said:Congratulations on prooving Jazzz correct.
Actual safety factor is likely to be well under 2.0 (or 200%), thus demolishing Jazz' post and highlighting the errors in his ludicrous attempt at DIY structural calcs.
I'll change the wording of that line to make it clearer.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Sorry you said it wouldn't be over 200%. Which is it?TheArchitect said:
Actual safety factor is likely to be well under 2.0 (or 200%), thus demolishing Jazz' post and highlighting the errors in his ludicrous attempt at DIY structural calcs.
or are experts just as capable of making mistakes at the CTers.
Too late. I've quoted it.
TheArchitect
New Member
WouldBe said:
You're just giving away that you didn't read the post properly. The preceeding paragraph is quite clear:
In other words failure occurs at about 1.4 design load, subject to other variables. Therefore the core cannot carry anything like the 200% Jazz claimed at one point, never mind the ludicrous figures elsewhere.
Unless, of course, you actually think that #1289 and its predecessor actually constituted a meaningful attempt at a structural calculation. Perhaps you're a CTer too?
detective-boy said:
On a 911 thread?? Give over man, that's preposterous.
To help clarify if you're one of these people with an open mind that you speak of: do you accept the possibility of lihop or mihop?
Because there's no proof or facts that says it wasn't one of those two scenarios, and there's no evidence that the whole thing can be put down to staggering incompetence by the yanks.
Do you have an open mind DB??
editor
hiraethified
I bet all that pesky "evidence" and those irritating "facts" must prove rather annoying for you when you find neither of them can be shaped or twisted to fit your closed-mind, set-in-stone, preconceived 'beliefs' in what really happened, eh fela?fela fan said:
But you've already said that you've got nothing new to add, so there's no need for you to hang around here offering your spiritual insights, maaaaan.
Personally I doubt lihop and mihop and I've get to be convinced by anything that has been put forward to suggest that it was. That there was certainly evidence that the there were major screw-ups and that intelligence was ignored. There were major problems with the resources that the NYFD were using (a continuing problem in the UK and the US as shown during the response to 7/7). But all of this is easy to say now with 20/20 hindsight.fela fan said:
The biggest piece of evidence against lihop/mihop is that no one has talked in all this time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
