9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

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.

I believe it's a draft of a newer version. The original was subjected to a peer-review process.

 

[8den]

I believe it's a draft of a newer version. The original was subjected to a peer-review process.

In what journal and by whom?

 

[Techno303]

I believe it's a draft of a newer version. The original was subjected to a peer-review process.

A newer version! …So it is a manuscript still. If the original has been peer reviewed, where was it published? Why is he writing a ‘newer version’? What the fuck is a ‘newer version’???

 

[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.

But you can't consider the 'top chunk' as some big sledgehammer - it's going to be torn apart in the collision just as that it is colliding with. And the grounded central steels, pointing up, are going to 'win' in any impact, like a lance wins against the charging horse. Steel from above will be deflected around them and anything else ripped up.

 

[Techno303]

A common theme with my discussions with you Jazzz is that I rarely get into the nitty gritty of the science you often mangle. You can’t even get off the ground with how you present a scientific argument.

 

[Jazzz]

A common theme with my discussions with you Jazzz is that I rarely get into the nitty gritty of the science you often mangle. You can’t even get off the ground with how you present a scientific argument.

Well the invitation is a very simple one - how did the central steels collapse? I have no idea what your theory is. Perhaps if you made one, then you might have a comment about my criticism of it.

 

[Jazzz]

jazzz vs lynchmob intermission

I'm taking a break from this morning's shenanigans.

 

[Techno303]

Well the invitation is a very simple one - how did the central steels collapse? I have no idea what your theory is. Perhaps if you made one, then you might have a comment about my criticism of it.

Fine. But you are basing your argument on someone else’s idea – the Jones ramblings. You keep referring to his ‘paper’. Where was it published following peer review?

 

[kyser_soze]

Well the invitation is a very simple one - how did the central steels collapse? I have no idea what your theory is. Perhaps if you made one, then you might have a comment about my criticism of it.

I think the general theory expressed here so far is that because they aren't 400m long single strips of steel the points where they were joined together (welds, rivets and joints) weren't capable of supporting the forces pushing a couple of 000 tons of building, and came apart.

You didn't think that they were single pieces of steel did you?

 

[Techno303]

You didn't think that they were single pieces of steel did you?

I've asked him this already in post 471.

 

[editor]

To reiterate; if Jazzz can't come up with a remotely plausible explanation as to how the vast tons of explosives were stored, installed and primed in the WTC without a single solitary soul out of thousands of workers, security staff, office managers, cleaning staff, admin staff, workers, catering staff, lift operators, health and safety bods, doormen and everyone else using the building daily finding anything even remotely amiss, his explosions 'theory' is a dead duck.

It is not possible to perfectly demolish a building that size with invisible explosives that can be installed invisibly or hidden in the stationery cupboard.

Unless Jazzz can prove how this remarkable feat was done, his CD claims remain in the land of flying pigs, unicorns and Cardiff City European Cup wins.

 

[MikeMcc]

But you can't consider the 'top chunk' as some big sledgehammer - it's going to be torn apart in the collision just as that it is colliding with. And the grounded central steels, pointing up, are going to 'win' in any impact, like a lance wins against the charging horse. Steel from above will be deflected around them and anything else ripped up.

Oh, so according to you the impact is sufficient to destroy the top section, but not the bottom even though the impulses initially applied to both are identical (Newton, action and reaction?). Sudden thought that occurred to me just now is that once the pressure wave from the initial impulse propagates down to the earth, a significant portion of it is going to get reflected (newton again, though it will be less because of elastic deformation of the ground in the area). You then have the reflected wave bouncing back up towards the collapse area. You seriously suggesting that all of those joints are going to withstand these forces?

 

[WouldBe]

And the grounded central steels, pointing up, are going to 'win' in any impact, like a lance wins against the charging horse. Steel from above will be deflected around them and anything else ripped up.

You have already stated that these central steels were braced by horizontal cross beams. If these are hit by a rapidly moving several ton steel from above they won't take the impact and will fail. This removes the bracing of the central steels which can then fail.

 

[detective-boy]

Those columns are your proverbial stillettos, with the exception that they point upwards. They are the toughest material in the mix by far.

Are they? Did they not have a single joint (and, hence, reliance on bolts) in their entire God knows how many storeys? And would each one, on it's own be expected to support it share of the thousands and thousands on tops of material trying to come down with momentum (not inertia, whoever mentioned that) and encouraged by gravity. Have you never seen a tall, thin metal post overcome by it's loading? Beginning to twist and warp and snap?

You are talking absolute bollocks as usual.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz,

I'm going to take this simply, and logically, because you do seem to have some fundamental problems with evidencial-based investigation and reasoning. Incidentally you might also want to know that hypotheses is the plural of hypothesis and not a spelling mistake.

You have claimed that evidence contrary to the NIST findings has been suppressed. This is incorrect; the full NIST report reviews a wide range of issues and evidence in great depth. However if you disagree, then tell us what this evidence actually is.

Let's take a classic example; the steel was sold and recycled quickly, before any proper testing could take place. Now one of the biggest problems with this is that it was over 8 months before the last of the steel was removed from site, on 29th May 2002. Similarly Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, has confirmed that his team had adequate access to the recovered metal held off-site (www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm).

However it's unfair of me to assume that Jazz might have subscribed to such a blatant misrepresentation. Jazz, please provide us with a comprehensive list of any evidence you feel was suppressed together with any additional tests you feel might - should - have been carried out.

I shall await your reply with interest.

 

[detective-boy]

What, 200 odd pages since you linked to it?

You really are un-fucking-believable!

You spend every fucking working hour demanding answers to this, that and the other crackpot theory claiming no such answers have ever been given ... and it transpires that you refuse to even fucking read relevant reports.

Tosser.

 

[detective-boy]

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

Does anyone know what height of central core style steel girder could support itself vertically (unassisted by any struts or braces at all) if continuous?

My guess would be it would be a damn sight less than the height of the WTC before it would buckle under it's own weight but I may be very wrong.

 

[detective-boy]

Jazz,

I'm going to take this simply ... < snip >

* Waves *

Oh, hello! Welcome back! Jazzz has been missing you!

Now, where's that popcorn ...

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz,

I challenged you to clearly state your views on the cause of the collapse and you have, in turn, posted a response. However if you'll forgive me for saying so, there are a lot of glib soundbites but little in the way of detail.

I'm quite happy for us to start addressing these, one at a time and in detail, but you're going to have to be more specific about what you claim happened. Having ploughed through many a CT theory in the past, we need to be quite clear as to the specific concerns which YOU have.

For ease of reference let's number them:

The fire in the South Tower was unremarkable and soon to be fully extinguished - thousands of tons of steel provided a huge 'heat sink' for any fire, so the steel columns could only have risen a few degrees in tempature - other skyscrapers have endured infernos utterly dwarfing those of the WTC and not collapsed

1. How do you know that the fire was modest and shortly to be extinguished?

2 Where specifically do you believe that the NIST fire modelling is wrong?

3. Are you suggesting that steel so efficiently conducts heat that it is effectively fire proof?

4. Which other syscrapers are you referring to?

- observations and photographic evidence of huge steel beams being flung out horizontally -

5. Evidence? Which columns do you mean and how far did they travel?

sightings of 'flashes' around collapsing floors -

5. Evidence, location, and explanation?

the pyroclastic flow of the dust cloud -

7. Pyroclastic? Are you quite sure about that? I can respond, but I just want you to be 100% clear that this is what you mean.

near 'free-fall' collapse time of the towers (not modelled by NIST IIRC) -

8. What do you believe the free fall and collapse time to be, and what conclusions do you draw?

9. Are you familiar with Frank Greening's various papers and where do you believe he has made errors?

video evidence of molten metal pouring from the structure consistent with thermite reaction

10. Evidence? Type of metal and conculsions drawn?

11. Evidence of thermite?

- analysis of steel samples consistent with thermate being present

12. Evidence of/source for thermate?

- seismic spikes and timing not consistent with official theory -

13. Source?

and not least, all the reports and evidence of explosions already mentioned in this thread.

14. Which do believe to be accurate accounts and which you wish to discuss in detail?

The question to be asked is whether observations like these are easily explained by the official theory, or whether one need have recourse to CD in order to satisfactorily explain them (it is certainly the case that they are well explained by CD).

You seem a bit unclear. Are these observations, or evidence?

I quoted the 'Fire Engineering' article to demonstrate the nature of the sloppy investigation, not as an analysis of the collapse itself.

You cherry picked and presented the article to suggest widespread professional doubts about the NIST theory. This is not what the article says. Perhaps if you choose to use sources in such unorthodox ways to support any more of you claims, you will tell us at the time?

I await your DETAILED reply with interest, although I fear that technical debate is not high on your list of priorities.

 

[TheArchitect]

* Waves *

Oh, hello! Welcome back! Jazzz has been missing you!

Now, where's that popcorn ...

An unexpected 3 days as a guest of the NHS. Fortunately they've thrown me out before the weekend!

 

[Techno303]

... ...Incidentally you might also want to know that hypotheses is the plural of hypothesis and not a spelling mistake.

<sits back and hands out more beers>

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz,

I'm going to take this simply, and logically, because you do seem to have some fundamental problems with evidencial-based investigation and reasoning. Incidentally you might also want to know that hypotheses is the plural of hypothesis and not a spelling mistake.

Oh hello TA, was wondering where you had got to. Will address your post soon. But quickly - I accept that 'hypotheses' is the plural of 'hypothesis'. But I wonder about 'hypetheses'. That's a new one on me.

 

[TheArchitect]

If we're going to start spellchecking posts, then this will take a hell of a lot longer.

And I've been in hospital.

 

[Loki]

Discussing grammar now... great comeback Jazzz! What's your next dodge?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

From Steve Jones' paper

<giggles>

How many times do people have to point out that his "paper" is a load of cock, and has been shown to be so countless times by countless people?

 

[8den]

Oh hello TA, was wondering where you had got to. Will address your post soon. But quickly - I accept that 'hypotheses' is the plural of 'hypothesis'. But I wonder about 'hypetheses'. That's a new one on me.

Hey because you've never made an "innocent" mistake there Jazzz.

*cough*
Mistaking Sci Fi for reality with your 2035 manual for holographic planes
*cough*

 

[MikeMcc]

Jazz,
...
4. Which other syscrapers are you referring to?
...
7. Pyroclastic? Are you quite sure about that? I can respond, but I just want you to be 100% clear that this is what you mean.

8. What do you believe the free fall and collapse time to be, and what conclusions do you draw?
...

While I've no intention of leaping to Jazz's aid, I have heard of steel-framed skyscrapers surviving significant fires. Admittedly they were substantially lower and a full steel frame rather than the core, cladding and cross-bracing floor joists that were used in WTC 1 & 2.

Jazz is clearly talking balls about pyroclastic flow, those are incredibly hot and very fast moving, much faster than the debris cloud from the collapse.

The collapse time is borne out though and is mentioned in the presentation that I linked to earlier. The collapse time was just under a fraction of a second less than the calculated time for a collapse under vacuum.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz,

I challenged you to clearly state your views on the cause of the collapse and you have, in turn, posted a response. However if you'll forgive me for saying so, there are a lot of glib soundbites but little in the way of detail.

I'm quite happy for us to start addressing these, one at a time and in detail, but you're going to have to be more specific about what you claim happened. Having ploughed through many a CT theory in the past, we need to be quite clear as to the specific concerns which YOU have.

For ease of reference let's number them:

Dear god, how patronising again!

1. How do you know that the fire was modest and shortly to be extinguished?

2 Where specifically do you believe that the NIST fire modelling is wrong?

Let's take these two together. The NIST fire modelling assumes, because it has to in order find validation for a fire-induced collapse theory, that there were blazing infernos in both towers. All very well, but if one looks at the South Tower in particular, there's no evidence of an inferno whatsoever. The available evidence suggests that, at the time the tower collapse, there were simply a few isolated pockets of fire. I remember watching it happen on TV, and seeing that black smoke had pretty much ceased coming out of the building, and the commentators saying the same. It was thought that firefighters hadn't been able to get very far up the tower, but when their tape was released it transpired that they had got all the way up to the impact floors, and instead of reporting any infernos they were talking about how they were going to put out some isolated pockets of fire

"Battalion Chief Palmer: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

10-45 Code Ones means dead bodies."

3. Are you suggesting that steel so efficiently conducts heat that it is effectively fire proof?

4. Which other syscrapers are you referring to?

3. Not quite, but it's a strong factor, especially when you consider that there was no inferno either. 4. Perhaps it's a reason why none of these skyscrapers fell, not least the Windsor Building in Madrid. All those fires are dramatic infernos which burned brighter and far longer than anything on Sept 11. and the Windsor building was of inferior construction to the WTC.

5. Evidence? Which columns do you mean and how far did they travel?

5. Evidence, location, and explanation?

Clearly, gravity-induced collapse is making those steels fly out horizontally.

6. Here'a page with quotes on the flashes, and also a good video where you can hear the 'pops'. Evidence of demolition charges in WTC2 for example

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." [Karin Deshore - Captain (E.M.S.)]"

7. Pyroclastic? Are you quite sure about that? I can respond, but I just want you to be 100% clear that this is what you mean.

8. What do you believe the free fall and collapse time to be, and what conclusions do you draw?

7. It's hardly an ambiguous term, is it? Am I going to say 'pyroclastic' when I'm ordering fish and chips? "would you like pyroclastic sauce on that?" er no.

8. I've already discussed my definition of 'near free-fall' and my conclusion is that the falling floors were scarcely impeded on the way down. This would be easily explained by CD, because the lower floors would be taken out as the upper floors fell.

That's all for now, my time is limited. We can address other issues later. Except I will address this bit:

You cherry picked and presented the article to suggest widespread professional doubts about the NIST theory. This is not what the article says. Perhaps if you choose to use sources in such unorthodox ways to support any more of you claims, you will tell us at the time?

Don't misrepresent me - I quote that article to make out that Fire Engineering considered the investigation second-rate - in response to Detective-Boy who was considering that the reports of explosions would have been properly investigated. Interesting that you are the one readily making assumptions to fit. Maybe you should read a bit more closely.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz is clearly talking balls about pyroclastic flow, those are incredibly hot and very fast moving, much faster than the debris cloud from the collapse.

The WTC dust cloud was certainly a pyroclastic flow - you say 'hot' because there's only one time you will get such a flow without explosives - that's from a volcano.

 

[MikeMcc]

The WTC dust cloud was certainly a pyroclastic flow - you say 'hot' because there's only one time you will get such a flow without explosives - that's from a volcano.

It's nothing like a pyroclastic flow

USGS Info page
Wikipedia definition

Just because it looks vaguely like a pyroclastic flow doesn't mean it is