9/11 media happenings

[Roadkill]

PMSL

Welcome back rorymac. I've missed you.

 

[Crispy]

What. The. Fuck. Was. That. About?

You have just had the rorymac experience.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

PMSL @ Rorymac

Just what the thread needed

 

[TheArchitect]

In all fairness, RoryMac makes more sense that Jazzzz's woo woo conspiracy theory!

 

[Augie March]

Wow. RoryMac should be on the radio...

 

[8den]

You have just had the rorymac experience.

It's the written equivilent of being stuck beside mad looney bastard ranting on the N73 bus, wearing shopping bags for shoes.

Only not as fragrent.

I'm horrifying fascintated and tempted to click onto the "see all posts by rorymac", but I'm terrified of what I will be confronted with, a depth of insanity Lovecraft dared not to dream of.

 

[EddyBlack]

...so every one of the 10,000 mild carbon steel ash trays I produced had no where you sit the ciggy in and you had to stick a piece of paper under one side to stop it wobbling noisily or spinning round and round through 360 degrees on a seemingly imaginary horizontal axis. If we name this axis (let's say X) and the vertical Y and take measurements at random intervals of say 30, 60 90, we find the ashtray spins around X, it's pattern was perfectly elyptical. He nicked all the data and got published in a French journal and got to go there all sponsored by Krups. I fucking never got interviewed by Krups and it was the only job I wanted. He fucking destroyed a fortan programme I was testing with his beard another time...

I got scared after that and had to stop reading.

 

[Crispy]

This is great A whole bunch of newbies have never been exposed to rorymac. Sorry newbies, the scars do not heal.

 

[Jazzz]

He is an architect who has specialised in designing skyscrapers. If his knowledge of mechanics (although we're talking about structural engineering here, as well as dynamics) was that bad, I doubt he could have done his job properly.

In my lunch break today, I asked the 5 architects on my floor at work what they thought. I showed them the floor plan and photos of the WTC under construction. I explained the structural system to them. And they all agreed with me - the WTC was a compound structure, whose stability was dependant on the cooperation of all three structural systems - facade, core and floors. Failure of one or more would lead to failure in the others.

They were especially concerned with this photo:
http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

which shows the very limited diagonal bracing in the core. This is because the core was not expected to experience heavy lateral load. The most senior architect on my floor said "wouldn't they brace that more?" - but of course, the close-knit exterior facade performs the function of bracing, so the core does not require much.

EDIT: In fact, from that photo, it seems that the bracing is only there to support the construction cranes.

So you asked them 'is the WTC a compound structure'. Well, I would agree with that. Compromise one element, and you compromise the building as a whole.

But be honest - you didn't put the simple question 'would the central core stand on its own?'. I think you probably realise that the answer to that is a clear YES - which is why you talked about compound structures instead. That's a completely different question to 'would the central core comfortably take the lateral load of the WTC in a hurricane?'. Standing on its own, it doesn't have to.


jazzz's simple proof that the outer shell would stand up for itself

Also, the outer shell I am sure would stand on its own, too - although you appear to want to claim otherwise. Even walled up! It has to - how on earth could it take all the lateral loads AND some of the gravity loads of the rest of the building too if it could not? Exactly what force would knock it down? There is none. And it didn't even have any diagonal bracing.

Consider yourself disproved young Crispy!



jazzz's staggeringly elegant proof that the central core would stand on its own

If it couldn't, there is no way you could construct the crane to build it!




I thank you.

 

[WouldBe]

jazzz's staggeringly elegant proof that the central core would stand on its own

If it couldn't, there is no way you could construct the crane to build it!

Neither the crane(s) used to build the WTC or the central core were built as a 1000ft high structure on their own. The core was built in stages only a few feet ahead of the floors and outer walls.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz

Your ignorance is stunning.

1. The core was not designed as a free standing structure and lacks (for example) sufficient bracing and the like. Do you understand basic structural design? Can we see your calculations and the like?

2. You have AGAIN failed to take account of the documented damage to the core caused by the aircraft impacts. Do you need me to spell out the number and location of columns?

3. You have similarly failed to address the fact that the core will have been damaged by debris during the collapse of the adjoining (and connected) floors, outer envelope, and so on.

4. And in any even, I've posted pictures which prove that parts of the lower core stood for a short period (about 15 to 20 seconds) following the collapse of the larger part of the building.

I really can't wait to hear your explanation for all these, and can only assume that your failure to do so thus far reflects your inability to provide a cogent response.

 

[editor]

Neither the crane(s) used to build the WTC or the central core were built as a 1000ft high structure on their own. The core was built in stages only a few feet ahead of the floors and outer walls.

A startlingly obvious fact that seems to have completely evaded our resident 'truth seeker.'



Jazzz: you're going beyond embarrassing now. Why do you keep on making such stupid claims? Even if someone has no knowledge of the WTC's construction it would still only take them 3 seconds to prove you wrong.

Like this:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

 

[TheArchitect]

Still waiting for that response to your "flying steel" claim, Jazz. Having problems with the maths?


ETA: You seem to be a little slow with the backup for your suggested collapse time/resistance of the structure too.

 

[laptop]

Could someone donate Jazzz a pencil and an old Smarties tube to do a practical demonstration of the statics, by observing what happens when you try to stand them up?

 

[Crispy]

So you asked them 'is the WTC a compound structure'. Well, I would agree with that. Compromise one element, and you compromise the building as a whole.

But be honest - you didn't put the simple question 'would the central core stand on its own?'

Ok, I just did. Answers were "of course not" "hmm, maybe, for a bit".

I think you probably realise that the answer to that is a clear YES - which is why you talked about compound structures instead. That's a completely different question to 'would the central core comfortably take the lateral load of the WTC in a hurricane?'. Standing on its own, it doesn't have to.

A hurricane is peanuts compared to the knocking the core would have got from the falling top 20 storeys.

jazzz's simple proof that the outer shell would stand up for itself

Also, the outer shell I am sure would stand on its own, too - although you appear to want to claim otherwise.

Here's a simple game you can play. Make a carboard tube and stand it on end. You can easily crush it by pushing down on the top. Now fix 'floor plates' all the way up the tube. You will find it much harder to crush. A compound structure by definition cannot self support any one of its components, they all rely on each other.

Even walled up! It has to - how on earth could it take all the lateral loads AND some of the gravity loads of the rest of the building too if it could not? Exactly what force would knock it down? There is none.

Once again, it is the dynamic loads of the falling 20 storeys above. Dynamic forces are an order of magnitude greater than static loads in this case, maybe two orders of magnitude. F=ma, and a is very very high in a collision situation. Much higher than 9.8, I think you'd agree?

And it didn't even have any diagonal bracing.

Look carefully. Each facade prefab section consists of two types of component. Vertical columns, and horizontal panels.

|_|_|_|_|
|#|#|#|#|
| | | | |

Like that. A solid panel is even better than diagonal bracing, as it spreads load in all directions, not just along the axis of the brace.

Consider yourself disproved young Crispy!

I consider myself amused

jazzz's staggeringly elegant proof that the central core would stand on its own

If it couldn't, there is no way you could construct the crane to build it!

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg
Have another look. How much of the core is supporting the cranes unaided? about 3 storey's worth. To support the cranes, the whole structure is required.

EDIT: Beg your pardon, wrong URL for the image. Ed had the right one.

 

[Techno303]

Do you always play this loose with the facts, or is it just a 911 thing?

Nah, his mangling of chemistry and biology is evident in any thread on mercury amalgam fillings and MMR. It's a Jazzz thing.

 

[Jazzz]

Ok, I just did. Answers were "of course not" "hmm, maybe, for a bit".

A hurricane is peanuts compared to the knocking the core would have got from the falling top 20 storeys.

I don't agree. It's all debris coming down. And besides the cross-section presented by the core columns to the falling debris is very small

Here's a simple game you can play. Make a carboard tube and stand it on end. You can easily crush it by pushing down on the top. Now fix 'floor plates' all the way up the tube. You will find it much harder to crush. A compound structure by definition cannot self support any one of its components, they all rely on each other.

Are you seriously suggesting that the outer shell would buckle under its own weight?

I appreciate your point about the floor plates, but don't think adding cardboard floors to a cardboard tube is going to dramatically make it resistant to crushing by any great order of magnitude. Moreover, if cardboard tubes can stand up at all by themselves, so can steel ones of the same height/floor area ratio. Surely.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg
Have another look. How much of the core is supporting the cranes unaided? about 3 storey's worth. To support the cranes, the whole structure is required.

EDIT: Beg your pardon, wrong URL for the image. Ed had the right one.

okay - so they didn't have a giant crane to construct the WTC.

But consider a giant crane anyway, it's just as good.

here's one - 'largest tower crane in the world' - it's 120m high. It has a footprint of just 10m*10m. It weighs just 100 tons. And much of that is going to be the hook bit at the top and counterweight. Probably most of it in fact. And not only does the tower take care of itself it takes care of the hook at the top, and also it will pick up things up for you and swing them around. It does this without risk of toppling, or buckling.

If that structure can possibly be stable then there is absolutely no question that when you increase the floor area by about 12 times, increase the amount of steel by maybe 300 times, have really deep foundations instead of none at all, and take away the need to swing loads around many times its own weight, you are going to be able to build it one hell of a lot higher.

If the core of the WTC wouldn't stand on its own, there is absolutely no way this crane could possibly exist.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz, you're leaving the realms of reality far behind - along with the many unanswered technical questions you seem so, so reluctant to answer.

Well, let's look at your latest attempt:

I don't agree. It's all debris coming down. And besides the cross-section presented by the core columns to the falling debris is very small

1. 20 storeys of debris including steel beams at lengths of up to 10m (hint: they weight a wee bit) impacted upon the lower parts of the building, all happily accelerating at 9.8ms-2. Are you seriously trying to claim that this would magically leave the core unscathed.

2. That's the same core that was damaged by the aircraft impacts and hence in a weakened condition.

3. The floors were fixed at both inner and outer perimeters - you acknowledge yourself that the core carried such loadings. Are you therefore also suggesting that these floors all magically came loose, without any damage to the core structure?

Are you seriously suggesting that the outer shell would buckle under its own weight?

4. Are you seriously suggesting that the comparatively slim column sections would remain free standing with no cross bracing?

I appreciate your point about the floor plates, but don't think adding cardboard floors to a cardboard tube is going to dramatically make it resistant to crushing by any great order of magnitude. Moreover, if cardboard tubes can stand up at all by themselves, so can steel ones of the same height/floor area ratio. Surely.

5. For a man who claims to have a good understanding of "mechanics" (sic), you do seem to have some difficulty with the relative strengths and characteristics of different materials.

If the core of the WTC wouldn't stand on its own, there is absolutely no way this crane could possibly exist.

So many mistakes, it's hard to know where to begin:

6. What were the dead and imposed loads on the crane structure in contrast to a real building?

7. Presumably the crane has an open structure; to what extent does this minimise wind loading and lateral stability issues?

8. To what extent does counterweighting of the crane boom contribute to stability?

9. How does the crane kentilidge compare in structural terms to the WTC foundations?


Now, since amnesia seems to be a problem of yours where difficult questions are concerned, do you need me to remind you of the various outstanding technical posts and questions that you're avoiding?

 

[TheArchitect]

Oh let's remind you anyway:

Jazz

Your ignorance is stunning.

1. The core was not designed as a free standing structure and lacks (for example) sufficient bracing and the like. Do you understand basic structural design? Can we see your calculations and the like?

2. You have AGAIN failed to take account of the documented damage to the core caused by the aircraft impacts. Do you need me to spell out the number and location of columns?

3. You have similarly failed to address the fact that the core will have been damaged by debris during the collapse of the adjoining (and connected) floors, outer envelope, and so on.

4. And in any even, I've posted pictures which prove that parts of the lower core stood for a short period (about 15 to 20 seconds) following the collapse of the larger part of the building.

I really can't wait to hear your explanation for all these, and can only assume that your failure to do so thus far reflects your inability to provide a cogent response.

 

[TheArchitect]

Then there's your "horizontal debris" argument, which you mysteriously dropped like a hot potato:

Where to begin.

1. You will recall that I asked you for more specific evidence or details of the material you claim had been ejected such distances. This has not (yet) been forthcoming, so in the interim I'm going to assume that you mean larger elements and not the minor ejecta we see comming through the windows.

2. Well firstly, we know that the individual steel beams did not weigh "hundreds of tons". In actual fact core columns were no longer than around 30ft/10m, and the facade sections smaller. Similarly the floors rested on lightweight trusses.

3. Secondly, there is no evidence that the core columns were ever found substantially outside the immediate area of the buildings, likewise the floor trusses broke into sections, hence you must be talking about the facade.

4. Next, we need to differentiate between the lightweight aluminium cladding - which was the same profile as the steel, of course - and the actual structural work. There is every reason to believe that dislidged lightweight cladding would travel a considerable distance.

5. Now let's look at the collapse mechanism. Following the loss of the internal floor trusses, the external structural envelope buckles so much that we can see it. Obviously this will be placing the steelwork under considerable stress. Then the joints fail. Now we know that steel is, in fact, actually quite elastic (or else springs wouldn't work, eh?) and indeed you confirm that yourself in another post. So there is every reason to assume that when these loads are released, there will be a degree of movement.

6. However this is not the only potential means by which movement might occur. Most obviously, sections of facade moving downwards would hit lower work and - shock - be deflected (ie bounce) outwards. If an object has already fallen a hundred or two hundred metres, then it's going to be moving at a fair rate.

7. Similarly (and I have to say I don't hugely buy this one myself, but throw it in for completeness) once the floors collapsed, the facade was unrestrained. Given the staggered joints it is perfectly possible that some sections would have swung out by a few metres prior to collapse, which combined with several hundred metres of air resistance could easily translate into a larger horizontal movement.

Just to back all this up, I'm going to quote another source:

How fast would it have to be thrown to cover this 390 foot distance? If the beam came from the 90th floor of WTC1, that would put it 1119 feet up. The debris hit around half way up WFC 3, we’ll call that 369 feet for convenience: that’s a fall of 750 feet. Freefall from that height gives the debris around 6.83 seconds to travel through the air, meaning it would need to average a horizontal velocity of 57.1 feet per second, or 38.94 miles per hour.



In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g) = around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 + (5.9 * 20) = 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg. (There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column. (So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d / (Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2) = 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away.

Now it seems to me that these all rather explain the potential mechanism in a bit more detail than your own "how did it go that far" argument, and if you plan to rebutt it it would be quite reasonable for us to expect to see something quite detailed.

I shall, as ever, await your response with interest.

So, still waiting for this one too.

 

[Jazzz]

4. And in any even, I've posted pictures which prove that parts of the lower core stood for a short period (about 15 to 20 seconds) following the collapse of the larger part of the building.

I'm thoroughly bored of you. You've produced huge post after huge post of demands and repetition of exact points we've gone over many times. I really can't be bothered.

But this is indeed interesting - this is clear proof that the foundations of the central columns were taken out, for how else did it fall? Once everything had fallen around it there was no reason why it should not have remained standing as a spire. Fantastically thick steel. Probably about as tall as the crane I mention above. No lateral forces to deal with. Not even mystic ones you can make up! Yet after a few seconds it strangely crumbled (note - not toppled).

 

[Jazzz]

oh look, in the time I constructed that you produced another THREE VAST POSTS including utterly huge C&Ps. This is trolling by flood attack.

 

[editor]

I'm thoroughly bored of you. You've produced huge post after huge post of demands and repetition of exact points we've gone over many times. I really can't be bothered.

You could try doing something radical like, I dunno, answering his points directly instead of introducing pointless off-topic ramblings about tiny little sculptures in Ireland, the world's biggest crane and a load of embarrassingly ill-informed guff about non-existent jumbo-sized enormo-cranes supposedly used to build the WTC.

Just an idea, like.

 

[Jazzz]

I did. But he wants to go around in circles. Much like you do.

I'd far rather attempt a meaningful discourse with Crispy.

 

[TheArchitect]

I'm thoroughly bored of you. You've produced huge post after huge post of demands and repetition of exact points we've gone over many times. I really can't be bothered.

But this is indeed interesting - this is clear proof that the foundations of the central columns were taken out, for how else did it fall? Once everything had fallen around it there was no reason why it should not have remained standing as a spire. Fantastically thick steel. Probably about as tall as the crane I mention above. No lateral forces to deal with. Not even mystic ones you can make up! Yet after a few seconds it strangely crumbled (note - not toppled).

Face it, Jazz. You're can't answer these posts. Where you try to, your evidence has been shown to be patently unreliable.

You are, in fact, pretty typical of the whole 911 "Truth" movement; long on rhetoric, but wholly incapable of any sort of meaningful analysis of evidence.

And as chance would have it, you only go and prove it in the above post! You claim that the core columns must have been blown, at foundation level, yet we have photrgraphic evidence - posted previously on this very forum - which confirms that the lower cores actually stood for 15 to 20 seconds after the collapse.

Tell me, Jazz. Am I going to get to add this to your long list of half truths and misrepresentations? Just like the quote about the 78th floor? Just like the claims that the smoke and flames had vanished? Just like the claim that the buildings fell at "near free fall speed"?

 

[editor]

I did. But he wants to go around in circles. Much like you do.

I'd far rather attempt a meaningful discourse with Crispy.

I think you'll find it's you avoiding the questions. And guess what - the vacuousness of your 'argument' has been well and truly rumbled by just about everyone on this thread.

Every time you're directly asked to back up your claims in the face of strong counter evidence, you resort to bluster, whining or dredging up some utterly irrelevant fact or another.

Why don't you just answer his entirely relevant questions?

 

[TheArchitect]

You could try doing something radical like, I dunno, answering his points directly instead of introducing pointless off-topic ramblings about tiny little sculptures in Ireland, the world's biggest crane and a load of embarrassingly ill-informed guff about non-existent jumbo-sized enormo-cranes supposedly used to build the WTC.

Just an idea, like.

You know, Jazz, I do expert witness work in public local inquiries and in court.

The one thing that marks out the bullshitters is that when faced with consistent, rigorous questions they either fall to bits or run away. They simply can't deal with a forum where they have to defend the rubbish they peddle.

That's all I'm doing here. Asking you - who accuses the US government of complicity in the death of 3,000 men, women, and children - to actually prove your case.

So far you've been caught out several times:

1. The FE quote

2. Free Fall times

3. Intensity of Fires

4. Claims of core integrity

In addition you have refused to back up your argument about horizontal debris.


Now if you're going to walk away from this argument then fair enough. But be under no illusion. You will have lost. And lost comprehensively.

 

[Jazzz]

And as chance would have it, you only go and prove it in the above post! You claim that the core columns must have been blown, at foundation level, yet we have photrgraphic evidence - posted previously on this very forum - which confirms that the lower cores actually stood for 15 to 20 seconds after the collapse.

Exactly, in order to fall, the foundations must have been taken out. Otherwise they should have remained standing.

You don't pay attention to responses do you?

And you accuse ME of being 'long on rhetoric'! That's fucking rich from someone that has been utterly bombarding the thread with verbiage. Ha!

 

[TheArchitect]

Exactly, in order to fall, the foundations must have been taken out. Otherwise they should have remained standing.

You don't pay attention to responses do you?

A circular argument? How very interesting.

So basically what you're saying is that the building collapsed because someone blew up the central core.

But when confronted with photgrahs of the central core standing AFTER the rest of the building collapses, you claim that they were then demolished?

In what possible way is this a logical conclusion?

 

[TheArchitect]

And you accuse ME of being 'long on rhetoric'! That's fucking rich from someone that has been utterly bombarding the thread with verbiage. Ha!

By the way, you're misinterpreting "verbage". Try facts. If you double check my posts, you'll find that it's all accurate. Unlike every single piece of your conspiracy theory we've looked at so far, which has proven to be false.

Now are you going to try and come back with some grown up, proper technical arguments or just continue to stamp your foot like a petulant toddler?