Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheArchitect said:
No Jazz, let's be honest here. You rarely encounter someone who actually takes you to task for the half truths and willful misrepresentations which dot your posts.

All I have done is hold your claims up to the light and show that your evidence is no more than substantial than an election promise.

It is particularly telling that you have chosen not to respond with technical arguments, but rather by way of a rant and complaints of misquotes.

Let's look at a classic example - again. YOU claimed that NIST had deliberately obscured, supressed, or destroyed evidence. Yet cou can't actually tell us what this evidence is other than a vague statement about bombs and thermite.

But you've not shown that evidence was so treated. In fact, you've refused to tell me what this evidence is! Tell me. How do you know evidence is missing if you don't know what that evidence is? How did you arrive at your conclusions?
here you go AGAIN! I refer you to my above post on the subject. God, this is tiresome.

With the deepest respect, you did NOT imply that the fire was out in the south tower. You STATED that it was out. Yet a simple review of photgraphic evidence, which would have taken you no more than 10 minutes, proved you to be wrong.

So tell me. How did you miss this simple evidence? After all, the adequacy of the fire modelling was a major plank of your case. I assume that you looked into all the evidence before reaching a conclusion? Or - and let's be honest here - did you just pick the stuff that suited your predetermined view?
I accepted the correction.


So a 30 to 60% (based on CT figures) increase in free fall time isn't substantial in your book?

Tell me, Jazz, how long do you think the collapse should have taken? How did you calculate the resistance of the lower structure, and can we see the calculations?
I consider the near-free fall collapse time to be suspicious. I have not quoted it as proof. It is easily explained by CD. Of course I am not claiming to provide an accurate model of exactly the nature of resistance of the floors to the cascade of debris - but I did do a calculation which took into account the inertia of the floors - that alone added seconds to the collapse time.

Again, be honest Jazz. You have absolutely NO structural training, do you? What expertise do you bring to your view that the collapse should have taken substantially longer?
I am certainly not the greatest student but I always had a good grasp of mechanics. At school, for my 'A' levels, I got As in Maths, Further Maths, and Physics and a first in 'S' level Maths. I received a silver medal in a Physics Olympiad. Due to CFS I didn't complete my degree successfully - I was studying maths.
 
You know, Jazz, some 3000 people died on 9/11.

That's 3,000 men, women, and children.


You've admitted that you got the extent of fire wrong. You've admitted that you can't back up your assertion that collapse speed is suspicious. And it's clear that you quoted FE out of context. Frankly, your comparison to Windsor Tower looks rather shakey too.

If I were going to accuse the US Government (a body I have no great love of) of such a heinous crime against humanity, then I might bother to get my research and facts right first.

I'm quite happy to continue going through your points one by one, but ask yourself; is this just going to continue in the same vein? Are you looking at embarassing climbdown after embarassing climbdown?
 
Jazzz said:
I am certainly not the greatest student but I always had a good grasp of mechanics. At school, for my 'A' levels, I got As in Maths, Further Maths, and Physics and a first in 'S' level Maths. I received a silver medal in a Physics Olympiad. Due to CFS I didn't complete my degree successfully - I was studying maths.
Will Graham: I thought you might enjoy the challenge. Find out if you're smarter than the person I'm looking for.
Hannibal Lecter: Then, by implication, you think you're smarter than I am, since it was you who caught me.
Will Graham: No, I know I'm not smarter than you.
Hannibal Lecter: Then how did you catch me?
Will Graham: You had... disadvantages.
Hannibal Lecter: What disadvantages?
Will Graham: You're insane.
Deja Vu all over again?
 
Jazzz said:
I am certainly not the greatest student but I always had a good grasp of mechanics. At school, for my 'A' levels, I got As in Maths, Further Maths, and Physics and a first in 'S' level Maths. I received a silver medal in a Physics Olympiad. Due to CFS I didn't complete my degree successfully - I was studying maths.

Well Jazz, some 21 years ago when I was at school I got O Grade, Higher, and SYS Maths. I have to tell you that these proved of little practical assistance when it came to studying two years of structures at university.

So what's your point?
 
I claim nothing but a good (intuitive) grasp of mechanics.

I am taking a break from this for a bit. I suggest others do the same.
 
Jazzz said:
I am taking a break from this for a bit. I suggest others do the same :rolleyes:
Nah, we're good thanks. That debunking 911 site's pretty good for sources to shoot down your claims by the by. Have you read it? (note: This is a rehtorical question, Jazzz does not read links that may disagree with him).
 
Jazzz said:
I claim nothing but a good (intuitive) grasp of mechanics.

I am taking a break from this for a bit. I suggest others do the same.
I can understand. Taking such a pummelling can be rather tiring. Rest up a bit and we can continue at a later date.
 
Jazzz said:
I claim nothing but a good (intuitive) grasp of mechanics.

Really? So how is that applicable to building structures then? Can you explain the difference between, say, elastic and plastic structural design? Can you show me some calcs proving that the core works as a free standing element?

I am taking a break from this for a bit. I suggest others do the same.


Running away, more like. I'm fine, so just keep it coming.
 
Crispy said:
I can understand. Taking such a pummelling can be rather tiring. Rest up a bit and we can continue at a later date.
Ha! Believe it or not, even I sometimes have better things to do Crispy. :p
 
Jazzz said:
Ha! Believe it or not, even I sometimes have better things to do Crispy. :p

Unfortunately this doesn't appear to extend to adequately researching (say) important issues such as the extent of the WTC2 fire or collapse times.
 
Jazzz said:
I am taking a break from this for a bit. I suggest others do the same :rolleyes:

Why. Because you're making a fool of yourself?

I competed in the Psychology Olympiad some 15 year ago and have a BTEC (distinction) in Truth Studies. I am therefore qualified to state that you're a delusional numbnut who's prone to inflating his own competence and knowledge above those far more qualified than him.
 
Jazzz said:
I claim nothing but a good (intuitive) grasp of mechanics.

I am taking a break from this for a bit. I suggest others do the same.


Awww

Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled - No!
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_JmoLbU_pYQ

Well that'll shut Jazzz up for a bit thanks The Architect, hope the leg starts to heal up.
 
Well I think it would only be fair to give Jazz a last chance to attempt a cogent response, as this thread will doubtless be cast up as evidence of his defeat for the foreseeable future.

I hasten to add that I am doubtfull that any such meaningful, properly researched and substantive response will appear.
 
Crispy said:
The central core was not the main load-bearing structure. It shared that duty with the outer skin. Second, it was not designed to take lateral forces, that job was almost entirely given to the outer skin. So, although it may well be able to hold its own weight against gravity, it had little or no lateral stability. This means that without sideways support, it will collapse. Which it did. I am an architect, I'm in a room full of architects and they all agree with me.

Utter, utter hogwash Crispy!

I suggest that you read the following, and then go upstairs to where the engineers are, show them the details and a picture of the 47 massive central columns (here, here) and ask them if it could stand up for itself. Dear me, architects aren't doing themselves any favours here. I quote from wikipedia

Design innovations

A typical floor layout and elevator arrangement of the WTC towers. To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure was built by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient area, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size. This method of construction also meant that the twin towers had the world's highest load-bearing walls.

'Central core was not the main load-bearing structure'? Dear oh dear.

And I think you have got confused about the lateral loading issue. Just because the shell of the building took care of lateral loads efficiently certainly does not mean that the 'MASSIVE' and 'STRONG' central core was in any way unstable. What it meant is that they were able to use lightweight floors because they didn't need to rely on the core for lateral stability.
 
TheArchitect said:
<blah blah> Now of course the inner core did not "support the rest of the tower". At the very least, it's obvious that the outer edge of the floor (and hence half the load) was supported by the outer facade.

To suggest that the central core was designed to act as a freestanding structure is absolutely ludicrous. It shows your limited understanding of structural issues, and it is telling that you fail to provide any technical justification for the argument.

Half the load taken by the outer skin? 'massive' and 'strong' central core not able to stand on its own? Oh dear, seems you don't have a scooby either.

You utter twats! :)
 
I think it's more likely, sadly, that Jazzz will ignore all the substantive points and your efforts, preferring to place his hands over his ears to all theories other than those which support a conspiratastic turn of events.

I'd like to be proved wrong, but whilst Jazzz's competence, theory and logic has been demolished on this thread, I fear his belief in the 'USA govt bad & therefore conspiracies must happen' approach will remain unshaken.

Indeed Jazzz will probably be thinking up/searching for his latest pet theory of how the buildings were destroyed via cd/holographic planes/wingtip carried missiles/a giant bird called Ernie right now...
:(
 
Did I say "gravity only"? - I read that piece before I wrote my quote, so please don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. There is vertical loading on the outer skin, the floors are attached to it. The structure of the WTC was a compound one, with the functionality of the structure split between the different components.

A very light, economical structure was built by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient area, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures.

And if you don't transmit lateral forces to the core, you don't need to include bracing in the core to resist it. You just have to resist the vertical load.

9-11%20Picture5.jpg

That core on its own? No, it would not stand upright. Nor would it be able to withstand the dynamic loads of a falling 25 storey chunk of skyscraper.
 
Jazzz said:
And I think you have got confused about the lateral loading issue. Just because the shell of the building took care of lateral loads efficiently certainly does not mean that the 'MASSIVE' and 'STRONG' central core was in any way unstable. What it meant is that they were able to use lightweight floors because they didn't need to rely on the core for lateral stability.

Lateral load are those cause by wind loading. Your information states the central core wasn't designed to withstand these sideways forces only the weight of the building.

With any structure if its center of gravity moves outside of the structures footprint it will collapse. The CoG of the whole tower would have to move a considerable distance for the tower to fall over but the central core was relatively small and on it's own wouldn't have to move very far to cause the central core to fall down.
 
Jazzz said:
Half the load taken by the outer skin? 'massive' and 'strong' central core not able to stand on its own? Oh dear, seems you don't have a scooby either.

You utter twats! :)
mate you're just making yourself look stupider with every post.The central core wouldn't be able to stand on its own without the outer skin and vice versa.

btw if you're interested I am a qualified civil engineer
 
Jazzz said:
Half the load taken by the outer skin? 'massive' and 'strong' central core not able to stand on its own? Oh dear, seems you don't have a scooby either.

You utter twats! :)


May I be the first to congratulate you on yet another egg-in-your-face misreading of the available facts. Anyone would think you didn't really understand what you were reading.

Will you now concede that's it's probably not a good idea to believe that you fully understand technical and architectural papers? Nor that you understand the principles and language sufficiently to theorise in the manner you have been.

May I also be the first to add, in my own Jazzz style, the following good tempered insult:

You utter twat! :)
 
[LOL] Well, I was right about the chances of receiving an informative and sensible response.

Lets expand upon what I said earlier, just to avoid any doubt on your part.

The WTC structural frame comprised three interlinked elements; an outer loadbearing facade, the floor structure, and the inner core. These three elements acted together in order to provide overall structural stability.

The outer structure resists the force of the wind, however the external envelope also carries part (around half) of the floor loadings - the big give away is the fact that the floors rested on the exterior steelwork, which I assume you will have noticed in photographs. I assume that you're not seriously suggesting that the floors were almost exclusively cantilevered (look it up) from the central core.

Now under the effect of wind alone, columns on the windward face are in tension whilst those in the lee are in compression. In reality, however, the dead load of the structure serves to minimise the tensile loads on the windward face. However for this to work, the various parts of the structure have to be adequately tied together - the girder or space frame analogy which I used earlier. Now in a normal tall building, this is carried out by columns. WTC used a different, composite system comprising lightweight trussed girders and an a reinforced concrete deck on permanent steel shuttering.

The core carried the remaining half (or so) of the gravity loads. The reason that the columns appear to be larger than the exterior facade is because they have to carry more load within a smaller cross-sectional floor (or perimeter) area. To suggest that the central core was designed to act as a freestanding structure is absolutely ludicrous. It was not designed for such purposes, and certainly not fitted with sufficient cross bracing in to resist any lateral loadings.

I note, in passing, that you still have failed to address the issue of damage caused to the core (a) at aircraft impact or (b) by debris and adjacent dislodgment of floors during the main collapse. Likewise the spire did actually stand for 15-20 seconds after the collapse.

Is there any particular reason you have decided to ignore these issues, or are you cherry picking evidence as you did (say) with the firefighting or the FE quotes?


ETA: Just to do your homework for you (again) here's some pictures of the so-called "spire" which comprised the core of the building:
 

Attachments

  • site1074.jpg
    site1074.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 15
  • wtc36c.jpg
    wtc36c.jpg
    10.7 KB · Views: 15
TheArchitect said:
You know when people start flinging insults around instead of arguments, it's a pretty good sign that they've lost the argument.
I don't know. BtL has his wits about him, but also lets fly with the odd insult. Can't say I blame him, it is infuriating, but it doesn't really help his position, from a neutral POV.

Note: I suspect the core would carry a greater vertical load, as it would also be carrying all services, lifts and staircases. By what factor, I could only guess. maybe the spread is 1/3 skin 2/3 core? This is still secondary to the lateral load issue.
 
Of course the core could stand up for itself! I've never come across such barking nonsense. It seems I am the only one who can understand the structure of the WTC here. Let's take the quote from wikipedia again:

"the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core"

Get that?

Outside columns - comparitively weak

Central core - VERY VERY STRONG

Now you guys (having already both put your foot it in bigtime by suggesting that the outside shell took half or more than half of the gravity loads) are telling me that comparitively weak outside columns are each better able to resist lateral loads than that of a MASSIVE central core column? Claptrap! This is just such obvious nonsense.

The 47 strongly-interconnected central steel columns are clearly able to stand up for themselves. Just standing on their own, there's hardly any lateral loads to deal with in any case! But the fact that the outside (comparitively weak) shell can deal with the lateral loads of the whole WTC just goes to show how strong the central core is. Let me repeat for Crispy who missed it in the last post - the advantage gained from not using the central core to share in the lateral loading was that of having lightweight floors. Nothing else. The central core had to be damn strong taking the weight of the building. If it was unstable laterally (!) then the whole building could have fallen because the floors weren't designed to hold it up!
 
TheArchitect said:
The core carried the remaining half (or so) of the gravity loads.
Crap! As shown by the wikipedia quote 'essentially hollow tubes around a massive central core' and which says that the core took the majority of the weight (and could take all of it).

And I'm thoroughly bored of your waffle!
 
Jazzz said:
Now you guys (having already both put your foot it in bigtime by suggesting that the outside shell took half or more than half of the gravity loads)

How many central columns were there?

How many external columns were there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom