9/11 media happenings

[MikeMcc]

Jazz, how about page 202 of the report that BTL linked to:

Core Damage

The core had significant damage in the region close to the impact point. The columns in line with the aircraft fuselage failed on the impact side, and several of the core beams were also severely damaged or failed in the impact zone. The calculated damage to the core of WTC 1 consisted of three severed columns and four heavily damaged columns.

On page 204:

Core Damage

In the base case WTC 2 impact damage analysis, significant damage to the core was calculated in the region close to the impact point (the southeast corner of the core). The columns in line with the aircraft fuselage failed on the impact side of the tower, and several of the core beams were also severely damaged or failed in the impact zone. In some cases, failure of the column splices located on floors 77, 80 and 83 contributed significantly to the failure of the core columns. This was particularly true for the heavy column number 1001 at the southeast corner of the core that failed at three splice locations. A total of five columns were severed and four columns were heavily damaged

So from the modelling, it seems that the core columns were severely damaged within the first few instants of impact.

 

[Jazzz]

Wrong. So very wrong: Live load was designed to range from 40 to 100 psf for all but floor 109.

PSF = 47.88 Pascals. Ie around 48*40 to 48*100 Newtons per meter squared.

Now, let's take the highest limit, that's a stunning 4800 Newtons of mass per meter square, that's a lot. That's alot, untill you realise that's not for something hitting the floor at speed. If you're still having trouble working out why exactly the floor would have yeilded i can fill in the rest of the gaps.

Now, the central core, what do you think would have happened to it if it hadn't yeilded as easily as it did? A central spire rising almost the entire height of the tower as the floors and outer cladding were stripped? Nope, obviously it would have been snapped from horizontal forces at some point during the collapse. Result? No different from what you can see. Your theory stinks.

It's in the report, easily found for anyone with a modicum of brains. Check it.

So the two reports give the design strength the buildings were designed to take, provide the numbers that show that the colapse would have continued, they give the reasons and reasoning for the collapse itself and all without having to resort to a single missile. How's that for absolutely nothing.

What a load of waffle. And no, it's FAR from 'obvious' that the central columns would snap from horizontal forces - and you can find no official model to say so, despite what you say. Your reaction to finding that the official model doesn't actually model the collapse at all past initiation point is to dig yourself deeper with hand-waving and bullshit. Poor show BTL.

As I pointed out to WouldBe, if the central columns were going to be pulled out by horizontal forces, rather than the trusses failing where they connected, we'd have no need for arches or suspension bridges.

Jazzz, you're fruitier than an orange grove. That you're too thick to understand basic mechanics is not my fault, that you're too lazy to try to educate yourself is not my fault either. Your sole evidence for this point is that you don't think that the central collums should have collapsed. Idiot.

Stop lying. I have simply selected one argument out of many to run with. And my understanding of basic mechanics is pretty good.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz, how about page 202 of the report that BTL linked to:

On page 204:

So from the modelling, it seems that the core columns were severely damaged within the first few instants of impact.

Yes, around the impact floors, my argument is over the columns beneath the impact floors which would have been undamaged by either impact or fire.

 

[Techno303]

And my understanding of basic mechanics is pretty good.

No it’s not. Like your understanding of biology, statistics and scientific methodology, it’s pretty shit.

 

[Crispy]

I wouldn't trust the scientific knowledge of anybody who fell for that pentawater thing.

 

[Loki]

Jazzz, you've been banging on about this for years now. You clearly think you have a watertight case.

In your situation I would alert journalists of all the major news organisations.

Have you done this? If not why not?

Seriously Jazzz, what's holding you back?

Here's Al Jazeera's contact page - they would absolutey be interested if you had any convincing evidence

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B58E2D15-7053-4126-8483-A396EFD6C697.htm

 

[Jazzz]

I wouldn't trust the scientific knowledge of anybody who fell for that pentawater thing.

I don't want you or anyone to trust me - work it out for yourself, and note that there is no official explanation for the collapse of the central steels.

I think it's a bit low mentioning Pentawater - yeah I tried a bottle and thought it did something, but I specifically said that could have been a placebo effect. I accepted the science was bunk.

 

[Jazzz]

Right, is this what we are left with? It's like you guys have run out of any discussion of the science and are just throwing tomatoes. Seems MrArchitect didn't show for round 2.

 

[Crispy]

I know it was a low shot - sorry about that. But I was being specific about your intuited explanations for building collapse - I don't believe you grasp the basic mechanics, and the pentawater thing was an example of a similar misunderstanding.

It's hard to discuss the science when you don't really get it

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What a load of waffle. And no, it's FAR from 'obvious' that the central columns would snap from horizontal forces - and you can find no official model to say so, despite what you say. Your reaction to finding that the official model doesn't actually model the collapse at all past initiation point is to dig yourself deeper with hand-waving and bullshit. Poor show BTL.

As I pointed out to WouldBe, if the central columns were going to be pulled out by horizontal forces, rather than the trusses failing where they connected, we'd have no need for arches or suspension bridges.

Stop lying. I have simply selected one argument out of many to run with. And my understanding of basic mechanics is pretty good.

So you don't understand that the floor trusses would have been stripped from the core according to your theory? Because there is no way floors rated to withstand a 5 per meter square static load are going to stand tens or hundreds of tons of debris hitting it.

Come on jazzz, surely even you can admit that the floors wouldn't have survived?

Don't whinge about the lack of an offical model you sanctamonious prick, you're yet to even try to find one that says they would have even the slightest chance of survival. Not discussing the science? Fucking try it yourself. I can understand why you don't want to, every time you try you get it wrong and get embarrased.

 

[MikeMcc]

Yes, around the impact floors, my argument is over the columns beneath the impact floors which would have been undamaged by either impact or fire.

And once the fire had heated the metalwork until creepage resulted causing the upper sections to collapse, they then then wellie the entire structure below with an impulse that it was never designed to withstand (watch the presentation that I linked to earlier). The bolts and welds fail and the whole thing collapses. It's blindingly obvious and simple, why look for anything else.

By the way, the figures for the damaged columns where the lowest ones out of the three studies quoted, others put the number of damaged and severed columns in the 20s (final couple of pages of that report)

 

[Techno303]

I don't want you or anyone to trust me - work it out for yourself, and note that there is no official explanation for the collapse of the central steels.

I think it's a bit low mentioning Pentawater - yeah I tried a bottle and thought it did something, but I specifically said that could have been a placebo effect. I accepted the science was bunk.

It’s not low though Jazzz and I think it is perfectly fair.

If you are relying on science to present some of your arguments then I’m going to note your overall understanding of things scientific. I’ll treat you as a peer and when you fuck up I’ll make a mental note. As you make more mistakes, which you frequently do, my confidence in your ability to actually understand some of the scientific processes being discussed on these threads and others is totally eroded. I’ve now come to the conclusion that scientifically you talk a lot of shit.

 

[kyser_soze]

Thing is Jazz, as has been pointed out countless times before, you're approaching this from the position 'The USG did it' and spend your time trying to demonstrate how.

There's a great letter in New Scientist this week about Creationists, and the tendency they have to point to any living system that doesn't have an obvious evolutionary path as evidence of Intelligent Design until someone demonstrates what the evolutionary path for that species or specialisation is, then they cross off that species and point to another one, and so on, and that's basically what you've done with 9/11 - from the crazy stuff like remote controlled planes and holograms and faked passenger calls (which were off the edge) to CD - and even within this you've been forced to restate your position as various bits of it have been refuted, and now having been unable to sustain a viable argument on how the explosives came to be present in the first place (or provide ANY kind of supporting testimony - one witnesses' speculation about a single empty floor simply isn't enough) you're now focussing on the collapse of steel beams, a position on which your basic position is 'I don't see how this could have happened, therefore it must have been CD' - you're working backwards to fit a theory, and as each bit is successfully challenged you fall back to another 'anomoly'.

Yet you ignore what I increasingly believe is the nodal point in all this - what George Tenet said to Rice, Bush and co at that meeting and how they responded, why there weren't minutes taken etc, and the follow-ons from that which could show, at least circumstantially, that the US Executive were guilty of dereliction of duty to protect the US from a credibly sourced attack.

But that's too prosaic and ordinary isn't it? That it could simply be down to the intellectual prejudices of one or two people who could have ordered the CIA/FBI to invstigate and possibly close down the cell.

 

[Techno303]

^ good post.

Jazzz...?

 

[Jazzz]

So you don't understand that the floor trusses would have been stripped from the core according to your theory? Because there is no way floors rated to withstand a 5 per meter square static load are going to stand tens or hundreds of tons of debris hitting it.

Come on jazzz, surely even you can admit that the floors wouldn't have survived?

Don't whinge about the lack of an offical model you sanctamonious prick, you're yet to even try to find one that says they would have even the slightest chance of survival. Not discussing the science? Fucking try it yourself. I can understand why you don't want to, every time you try you get it wrong and get embarrased.

Either you are wilfully misrepresenting me, or confused.

Exactly the point I was making was that if anything is going to fail, it will be the floor trusses, leaving the central columns. The floor trusses cannot somehow yank them apart.

I don't have to demonstrate that the whole lot would have held - it's only necessary to consider the central columns. If there is no given mechanism for their collapse, and there isn't, then the collapse as a whole is unexplained.

I've noticed that as your posting quality drops the more abusive you get BTL.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I've noticed that you haven't tried to deal with any science since that piss poor attempt of yours to try and persuade people that there's no difference between 15ppm and 15ppb. Your current retreat into a world of "i don't want to belive it" is really irritating.

 

[Jazzz]

It’s not low though Jazzz and I think it is perfectly fair.

If you are relying on science to present some of your arguments then I’m going to note your overall understanding of things scientific. I’ll treat you as a peer and when you fuck up I’ll make a mental note. As you make more mistakes, which you frequently do, my confidence in your ability to actually understand some of the scientific processes being discussed on these threads and others is totally eroded. I’ve now come to the conclusion that scientifically you talk a lot of shit.

But I never argued that I understood and approved of the pseudoscience of Pentawater. I had tried a bottle - because my yoga instructor was raving about it - and thought it had helped. I acknowledged it could have been a placebo effect. Which it was. So, I looked a little silly there for sure but I don't blame myself because I can experience a placebo effect and that doesn't mean my grasp of mechanics is not sound.

 

[liampreston]

Again, sorry if this is not the right kind of post but...given the way in which the buildings were attacked surely the "basic rules" of how a building behaves would be put somewhat to one side...? if this sounds naive, maybe it is, but Jazzz you seem to be trying to argue science from a non-science angle, then getting angry when the science angle is put to you....

 

[MikeMcc]

Either you are wilfully misrepresenting me, or confused.

Exactly the point I was making was that if anything is going to fail, it will be the floor trusses, leaving the central columns. The floor trusses cannot somehow yank them apart.

I don't have to demonstrate that the whole lot would have held - it's only necessary to consider the central columns. If there is no given mechanism for their collapse, and there isn't, then the collapse as a whole is unexplained.

I've noticed that as your posting quality drops the more abusive you get BTL.

Yes they can, because lateral loads (from imbalances in the load distribution would cause the bolts between sections to shear. While the lateral loads from the impacts were substantially less than than those designed in to account for wind loadings, they were well overloaded during the collapse.

 

[Crispy]

The vector of thrust from the dropping top chunk would not be perfectly vertical, especially if considered in localised conditions. Seeing as that force was so great, even the small horizontal component of that vector would be enough to buckle columns.

This is a bit tedious to be honest, as neither of us are engineers. I'm an architect, so I've got a bit more knowledge of the behaviour of structures, but in the end, we're still laymen, pissing in the wind. Thing is, the expert's view ties in with my knowldege, whereas your lesser expertise disagrees wildly. Sorry to sound all pompous, but that's the way I'm seeing it.

 

[Techno303]

Maybe Jazzz thinks the central columns are one continuous cut of metal?

 

[Jazzz]

Don't whinge about the lack of an offical model you sanctamonious prick, you're yet to even try to find one that says they would have even the slightest chance of survival. Not discussing the science? Fucking try it yourself. I can understand why you don't want to, every time you try you get it wrong and get embarrased.

You don't have to look far to find an official model that says they should have stayed up - NIST's very own one did, until they played around with the controls to the extent that it came down. From Steve Jones' paper

The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You don't have to look far to find an official model that says they should have stayed up - NIST's very own one did, until they played around with the controls to the extent that it came down. From Steve Jones' paper

Dishonest fucker.

Are you trying to use a report that says they shouldn't have collapsed at all to show that once moving the central colum would have remained standing like some thousand foot high needle?

 

[Jazzz]

Dishonest fucker.

Are you trying to use a report that says they shouldn't have collapsed at all to show that once moving the central colum would have remained standing like some thousand foot high needle?

You're the one being dishonest. I don't need to produce any official model to say that the central columns would still be standing - you need to find one to say that they would collapse, which there isn't. I quoted that to indulge your comment about finding an official model to show that the whole lot would still be up there.

 

[Crispy]

within the range of physical reality

 

[nick1181]

When this thread first started, for some reason I had my doubts. For some reason I had this crisis of confidence, that maybe... it wouldn't go on for 20 pages.

I pretty sure it will be ok now though.

 

[editor]

Jazzz still can't come up with a remotely credible explanation for how these tons of mysteriously invisible explosives managed to be brought into the building, installed and primed by invisible operatives (who have amazingly saved silent about it forever despite being complicit in the deaths of thousands of their fellow countrymen).

Moreover, he can't even offer a remotely sane explanation for why not a single employee of the tens of thousands of people who worked there failed to see a single thing.

Even his all-seeing, all-hearing, showbiz-craving, failed magician janitor hero Rodriguez couldn't see them!
Can't be much of a janitor if you failed to spot thousands of tons of explosives being lugged about the building, walls drilled and wires placed.

 

[Jazzz]

The vector of thrust from the dropping top chunk would not be perfectly vertical, especially if considered in localised conditions. Seeing as that force was so great, even the small horizontal component of that vector would be enough to buckle columns.

This is a bit tedious to be honest, as neither of us are engineers. I'm an architect, so I've got a bit more knowledge of the behaviour of structures, but in the end, we're still laymen, pissing in the wind. Thing is, the expert's view ties in with my knowldege, whereas your lesser expertise disagrees wildly. Sorry to sound all pompous, but that's the way I'm seeing it.

But there is no expert's explanation for the collapse of the central core.

 

[Techno303]

You don't have to look far to find an official model that says they should have stayed up - NIST's very own one did, until they played around with the controls to the extent that it came down. From Steve Jones' paper

Can I point out Jazzz that it is NOT a ‘paper’. It is a ‘manuscript’ or a draft. It is an article that has not been subjected to peer review or published in a journal. This means that it is just the ramblings of some berk. You choosing to call it a paper is misleading because it makes the article sound scientifically significant when it is not.

 

[Jazzz]

within the range of physical reality

The fact remains that they reverse-engineered the model to give the desired result, and that only modelled the initiation of collapse in any case. And who knows what input variables they used - they've kept schtum. Much like all the photos and videos FEMA are refusing to release.