9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

Wood cracking and splintering shows it's not elastic. That's why you can bend steel into intricate shapes where you can't do the same with wood.

Now what would one use to fire an arrow - steel or wood?

 

[WouldBe]

Now what would one use to fire an arrow - steel or wood?

What would you make a spring out of - wood or steel?

Steel bow.

 

[Jazzz]

What would you make a spring out of - wood or steel?

If you carved a wood spring (a pain!) it might be too elastic to provide resistance. Check out your young's modulii - steel is twenty times more elastic.

Also, it's one hell of a lot heavier

 

[Crispy]

It all depends. Wood has a modulus of elasticty of around 10GPa. Steel is around 200. This means steel is stiffer, which is why you'd build a skyscraper out of it.

I wish I hadn't brought up that pencil now, because it's a stupid analogy. Imagine a stack of dominos:

_
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|

Smack down hard on the top. One or two of the dominoes will fly out horizontally.

 

[Crispy]

If you carved a wood spring (a pain!) it might be too elastic to provide resistance. Check out your young's modulii - steel is twenty times more elastic.

Also, it's one hell of a lot heavier

Oh man. Twenty times LESS elastic, I think you'll find.
Which is why a coat hanger will bend, but a twig of similar diameter will spring back.

 

[WouldBe]

Wood - very elastic: Steel - very unelastic.

If you carved a wood spring it would be too elastic to provide resistance. Check out your young's modulii - steel is twenty times more elastic.

Which is it? Is steel elastic or very unelastic?

Just as with steel the strength of a spring depends on it's dimensions. If wood is too elastic then you just make the spring bigger.

 

[Crispy]

The whole reason a spring is spring shaped is because steel only accepts a small amount of deflection before being permantly bent. The coil shape means that the steel behaves like a very very long lever arm, that bends ever so slightly.

 

[Jazzz]

It all depends. Wood has a modulus of elasticty of around 10GPa. Steel is around 200. This means steel is stiffer, which is why you'd build a skyscraper out of it.

I wish I hadn't brought up that pencil now, because it's a stupid analogy. Imagine a stack of dominos:

_
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|
|_|

Smack down hard on the top. One or two of the dominoes will fly out horizontally.

Or even better - simply dislodge a middle level and see what happens.

In fact even if I smack down on top with the dominoes I just used, the structure either holds or goes sideways by toppling

 

[Jazzz]

Oh man. Twenty times LESS elastic, I think you'll find.
Which is why a coat hanger will bend, but a twig of similar diameter will spring back.

That's what I meant, thank you

 

[editor]

So Jazzz. How did they sneak in these tons and tons of explosives in a hugely busy building and then manage to precisely place them to guarantee a perfect explosion without a single soul in the known universe spotting anything amiss?

 

[Jazzz]

So Jazzz. How did they sneak in these tons and tons of explosives in a hugely busy building and then manage to precisely place them to guarantee a perfect explosion without a single soul in the known universe spotting anything amiss?

it's roboeditor!

 

[magic.d]

Now what would one use to fire an arrow - steel or wood?

a combination of steel and wood. see link (ok, it's not an arrow but.......)


http://www.mangonel.com/petraria/


guess which part is the flexible one!


btw:
the flexibility of steel depends on how much carbon is mixed with iron...but i guess this thread has nothing to do with chemical facts.

 

[Crispy]

it's roboeditor!

I've still not heard a sensible answer to that question though.

 

[editor]

it's roboeditor!

Thing is there's no point listening to you prattle on with your amateur demolition theories if we can't get past the basic sticking point of how these vast amounts of explosives managed to be invisibly secreted into the building without a single soul noticing a thing.

Any ideas, yet?

 

[Jazzz]

Thing is there's no point listening to you prattle on with your amateur demolition theories if we can't get past the basic sticking point of how these vast amounts of explosives managed to be invisibly secreted into the building without a single soul noticing a thing.

Any ideas, yet?

I've answered your question countless times, if you cannot accept the disagreement then I suggest ignoring the thread, it's obviously going to be groundhog day otherwise.

 

[Crispy]

I've answered your question countless times, if you cannot accept the disagreement then I suggest ignoring the thread, it's obviously going to be groundhog day otherwise.

Ain't that the truth.

Nice to see The Architect try. And Jazz's persistence is commendable just for the effort of will involved. But fuck me if it hasn't been more than 5 years and nobody's had their mind changed. It would surprise me if they did now.

 

[editor]

I've answered your question countless times, if you cannot accept the disagreement then I suggest ignoring the thread, it's obviously going to be groundhog day otherwise.

I've asked for a remotely plausible explanation.

Your half witted claim that not a single soul would notice teams of strangers dragging in huge mysterious boxes and then drilling holes into office walls was anything but.

Until you solve this particular conundrum, your barmy demolition claims are a complete non starter.

 

[Jazzz]

You are equally-a-chortle by suggesting that horizontal ejection of huge steel beams is evidence for CD. The energy levels involved once the collapse was underway would almost garuntee some horizontal movement, just in the random chaos of things. Compress a pencil in a vice and see how when it gives way, the shards go everywhere. Beside, in a nicely controlled demolition, you plan the charges to avoid such things.

The last point is interesting - yes you would certainly plan the charges to avoid such hurtling. But, you would do that by making the structure collapse at the bottom. That would not be an option if you wanted to make it look like it was 'pancaking'.

 

[TheArchitect]

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.

Still waiting for a reply to this, Jazz.

 

[8den]

I must congratulate you on a strategy that I haven't encountered before though TA. It may even prove successful. 'Boring the opponent into submission'

Yeah and I imagine his facts and logic don't sit well in the fantasy la la land that you inhabit daily.

 

[Jazzz]

Still waiting for a reply to this, Jazz.

You'll have to ask FEMA for a comprehensive list of the evidence they chucked away. But they should certainly have tested the steel for explosives (I believe 'twinning') and thermite residues. They haven't done so. Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

 

[editor]

The last point is interesting - yes you would certainly plan the charges to avoid such hurtling.

So how did they smuggle in the massive amounts of charges needed and install them precisely without a single soul anywhere seeing a thing Jazzz?

Or did they use a Romulan cloaking device?

 

[editor]

A few days before 9/11...

 

[TheArchitect]

Let's cast our mind back to a point I made earlier:

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.

On the subject of free fall, you then said:

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 it: zip in the way of calculations, consideration of structural issues, and so on. So you will appreciate my puzzlement when you then try to make out that your views have been misrepresented.

The solution is simple: be quite clear about what you mean, and what you believe happened.

Now let's turn to your latest comments regarding free fall (ahem):

I said they collapsed at 'near free-fall' speed. Please stop making out I have said something else. It's very close to free-fall because even if one floor will impede the debris falling on it by just a few percent, then that will multiply through to become a big difference in the collapse time. As it is, even the inertia of the floors having to be accelerated is going to slow the collapse. Let alone any resistance from the grounded structure. You forgot that.

(i) Taking acceleration due to gravity at 9.8ms-2, an object 471m high would take around 9.22 seconds to reach ground level. Most CT estimates of the collapse lie between 12 and 15 seconds. The difference, which is of course largely due to the lower structure, may only be between 3 and 6 seconds but is nevertheless substantial; 3 seconds represents some 30%.

(ii) In designing structures, and in particular the joints, we take account of a range of issues including dead and live load. Dynamic loads are a fairly minor issue, saving for wind loadings. What we do not design for is the significant dynamic load arising from the massive weight of the upper floors of the tower hitting at 9.8ms-2.

(iii) Under such extreme loadings, especially where the lower structure has already been compromised by the loss of the hatt trusses, the resistance of the lower floors would be minimal - franctions of a second, not seconds. This is entirely consistent with the differences observed between free fall and actual collapse times.

If you beg to differ, then you might want to bring forward some structural calculations showing that the lower structure would have had sufficient shear resistance to take the impact. But you can't do that, because there is no way they could.

Let's note that you haven't offered an explanation for the collapse of the central steels - which has indeed been my main argument against the official theory ever since I have been debating it.

(iv) Lets be quite clear here. Are you claiming that the central core was so designed that it could act as an entirely freestanding structure? Do you mean across it's full height, or just partially? And on what do you base this amazing assertion?

 

[TheArchitect]

You'll have to ask FEMA for a comprehensive list of the evidence they chucked away. But they should certainly have tested the steel for explosives (I believe 'twinning') and thermite residues. They haven't done so. Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

I'm sorry, you appear to be a little confused.

YOU claimed that evidence had been deliberately destroyed or suppressed.

In order to make such a statement, you MUST know what said evidence is. And yet the only items you identify is this.

Before I answer such a laughably easy question, what other evidence do you believe was so obscured?

 

[TheArchitect]

Are you sure you aren't thinking of this site?

I don't accept your comment about video evidence disproving the testimonies I linked to. The 'pops' are heard if not seen on the video featured (a curious 'crackling' sound perhaps starting before the collapse itself). Of course the collapse occurred at the impact floors - it had to, whether it was collapsing due to the official theory, or collapsing due to CD made to look like the official theory. The weakest straw man is that CD is somehow disproved because the collapse didn't happen at the bottom.

We've been over this: they claimed what they could - their testimonies are perfectly in keeping with the presence of bombs. And we certainly have audio evidence of one very large explosion.

There are many reports of explosions before the collapse, and then there are comments on the collapse itself being like a controlled demolition.

Deary, deary me. Lets look at this.

1. You have no compelling photgraphic evidence of squibs, flashes, or explosions.

2. You have no physical evidence of any explosive devices.

3. What you do have is a collections of people saying they heard explosions.

Now what I can do - and you will look a fanny, again - is go and pick out a huge selection of people who's actual 911 quotes are "sounded like explosions" and so on. I'll then go and pull another pile of quotes from unrealted incidents such as train crashes, avalanches, and so on where people also use the word "explosion" the way they do here - "a loud noise".

You see, at the end of the day you have no substantive proof of an explosion. But do feel free to prove me wrong.

You're having a laugh if you think this baloney explains the horizontal ejection of huge steel beams.

Learn to read. If you look back, you'll find that I actually asked you for more information on these supposed beams and other material which were ejected from the building. Feel free to provide it sometime soon, in order that it can be debunked.

 

[Jazzz]

Stripping the waffle - you could have said 'the lower floors will hardly impede those falling from above' in one sentence! But you missed my point which is that ANY impedence will multiply through because of the compound nature. And you missed my point about the inertia of the floors providing a degree of resistance just in itself. I put it that the real reason the towers collapsed so quickly is because they were blown up and that is why there was no resistance. Not because there could not have been resistance. Note also that the Windsor building in Madrid suffered a collapse of some of the floors, and not only did it not collapse in a near-free fall speed, it held up.

Yes of course I consider the central steels would hold up by themselves. Are you going to say otherwise? Please keep it brief.

 

[TheArchitect]

I don't know why I am having to repeat myself - I quoted the Fire Engineering article perfectly fairly. Detective-Boy was saying that the reports of explosions should have been investigated. Else, there would have been an error in the investigation. In order to show that there was such an error, I produced the Fire Engineering article, which makes clear that the investigation was utterly shoddy and involved the wholesale destruction of evidence and - with reasonable implication - let alone the investigation of bomb theories.

The article doesn't prove that controlled demolition took place, what it shows is that there wasn't any kind of proper investigation. This quote I will repeat - it speaks for itself

"As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. " Bill Manning, Fire Engineering

Nothing changed, and that's exactly what we are left with.

No, you're trying to twist the facts. YOU implied that the FE article cast doubt upon the NIST report and findings when in actual fact a trye reading of the various FE pieces paints a quite different picture.

If, however, you feel hard done by then I'm sure you'd be more than happy to explain to everyone why you omitted any reference to their specific concerns or indeed mention their articles which were supportive of the NIST findings.

Whenever suits you......

 

[Crispy]

Note also that the Windsor building in Madrid suffered a collapse of some of the floors, and not only did it not collapse in a near-free fall speed, it held up.

Smaller building, different structural system. Not a fair comparison

Yes of course I consider the central steels would hold up by themselves. Are you going to say otherwise? Please keep it brief.

1. A seventy storey tall lift/service core will not stand up on its own. Too slender.
2. It was designed to share the overall load with the outer skin, not take the whole lot.
3. Once the top section was even slightly off-vertical, then it would exert lateral forces far in excess of the designed wind-loading.

 

[TheArchitect]

No, but I would claim that no flames and hardly any smoke is a sign of a weak fire. Like with the South Tower just before collapse.

So you're specifically claiming that there were no flames and hardly any smoke at WTC2 immediately prior to the collapse?