9/11 media happenings

[Techno303]

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?

He’ll probably accuse you of using the royal ‘we’ again or summin. It’s fucking embarrassing to be fair.

 

[Crispy]

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

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

Yes. Almost certainly. And very very certainly if there are other structual members eerting undesigned-for forces.

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.

You think? Surely? Good grief. The cardboard thing - it's an analogy, to show the failure mode of a hollow tube versus a braced one. To do a proper analysis, you need to scale the material properities as well as the dimensions. And seeing as some material properties vary linearly, some by square and some by cube, that's a tricky prospect, and one much better suited to a computer simulation.

here's one - 'largest tower crane in the world' - it's 120m high.

1/4 the height of the WTC

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.

Those are two different structures, with different dead loads, with different heights. Note also that the crane is braced across its full width. "Common Sense Intuition" is not a useful tool.

 

[Jazzz]

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.

This is no court of law and the aim of the 9/11 truth movement is simply to re-open the investigation.

You mention a load of points we have thoroughly gone over. You then completely ignore the responses and then claim I haven't responded. And you twist logic too (like 'no inferno' means 'no fire' where it suits you). I have little time for people that simply ignore responses and then repeat the same old things, which you've done about ten times. If I did, I'd be here all day and have no time for anything else including talking to other posters, many of whom are far more reasonable than you are.

If you really wish to claim some sort of victory by spam attack, then well - I can't stop you. But don't be under any illusions about it.

 

[Crispy]

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).

Oh yes, there it stands, magically undamaged by the building that just collapsed around it. Of course, there are no joints hanging on by a bolt, or steel under stress very slowly approaching breaking point, or vibrations from settling wreckage below unsettling things.

 

[8den]

If you really wish to claim some sort of victory by spam attack, then well - I can't stop you. But don't be under any illusions about it.

Yeah Jazz none of us are under any illusions here. There hasnt been this decisive a victory since they put Tyson in a ring with a parapalegic 11 year old girl.

 

[Jazzz]

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?

Your highness,

It does rather seem that YOU are the one are 'stamping your foot like a petulant toddler'. I'm making no demands of you whatsoever. Although, you might wish to try posting one at a time, and waiting if you get a response - you might have more chance that way. You remind me of a poster a while back called Elspeth Symrivi - it was pointless attempting discussion with him, you would construct one reply to find another four posts from him waiting. Discussion got nowhere.

 

[TheArchitect]

This is no court of law and the aim of the 9/11 truth movement is simply to re-open the investigation.

Jazz, it was you who claimed that there were key evidencial issues and suggested CT. It was YOU who set the agenda for the discussion.
And bizarrely, it is YOU who can't actually back up any of these claims!

This may not be a court of law, but when you make such a serious accusation I don't think it unreasonable to test whether you actually know what you're talking about.

You mention a load of points we have thoroughly gone over.You then completely ignore the responses and then claim I haven't responded.

Really? Do you want me to list all the questions and points you've not answered? We can start with the horizontal debris argument.

I'd be here all day and have no time for anything else including talking to other posters, many of whom are far more reasonable than you are.

Not if you knew what you were talking about. The problem seems to be that you would actually have to do research and analsyis.

If you really wish to claim some sort of victory by spam attack, then well - I can't stop you. But don't be under any illusions about it.

I don't think any of us are under any illusions about your ability to argue effectively, Jazz

Your views over 911 aren't based on logical analysis. Instead it's a belief system. No evidence will ever convince you that you are wrong, because you have a religious fervour that prevents any meaningful attempt at self analysis.

 

[TheArchitect]

Your highness,

.

And you wonder about the toddler analogy?

 

[Crispy]

This is the conclusion that is inevitable. Unfortunately, ths is also the point where rational discussion breaks down, as when you get tired on hammering on the wall of faith, all you can do is hurl insults at it.

 

[Flavour]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

 

[Loki]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

he he

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz, it was you who claimed that there were key evidencial issues and suggested CT. It was YOU who set the agenda for the discussion.

On the contrary, I've been responding to your points. I think you should calm down and stop flooding the place. Maybe then I'll find I can talk to you. In the meantime I may be able to have an interesting discussion with Crispy, although we probably won't agree with each other.

 

[Crispy]

Well, given that you seem to have a poor understanding of some very basic structural concepts, I doubt that. Please, educate yourself.

 

[Jazzz]

And you wonder about the toddler analogy?

You used your 'royal we' yet again, it's quite excruciating... it deserves to have the piss thoroughly ripped out of it. Sorry old bean.

 

[Crispy]

I think he's using the collective 'we' as in "we can therefore demonstrate" - or "you and me and him and her, but not you"

 

[Jazzz]

Those are two different structures, with different dead loads, with different heights. Note also that the crane is braced across its full width. "Common Sense Intuition" is not a useful tool.

Oh come on!

If you can build a crane tower that high, with less than 50 tons of steel, and it can carry another 150 tons or so of load, and large toppling forces too - well you could certainly have another 150 tons of tower on top - that takes you to the height of the WTC already (the tower would fail at the base if it was to).

The WTC core featured (rough calculation) 300 times as much steel, and a much wider footprint - it's obviously going to stand up for itself. Even if it is braced differently. It's nuts to think otherwise.

Here's another thing to chew on: the WTC is going to be replaced by this

That spire is the height of the crane, and it's on no footprint whatsoever! And I guess it won't even wobble around, let alone fail.

 

[TheArchitect]

Maybe then I'll find I can talk to you.

I think that just confirms your defeat.

And I don't imagine too many people disagreeing.

 

[Crispy]

That spire is the height of the crane, and it's on no footprint whatsoever! And I guess it won't even wobble around, let alone fail.

Well, gee, I suspect it will be designed to do so.
Anyway, let's just say for a moment that the core could stand up on its own. Remind me again why this proves the demolition theory. It was many pages ago now.

 

[TheArchitect]

He can't, because (a) it wouldn't and (b) he can't do structural calculations. Instead he'll tell you how "big" the crane was again.

 

[Loki]

You used your 'royal we' yet again, it's quite excruciating... it deserves to have the piss thoroughly ripped out of it. Sorry old bean.

Nah Jazzz - to me it it looks like he's destroyed your theories in this debate and the best you can come back with is lame criticiscms.

 

[brixtonvilla]

Has to attack the style, 'cause he can't touch the substance. I predict another few pages of indignant wittering though.

 

[TheArchitect]

It's quite telling that it was Jazz who raised the issue of the so called horizontal debris, but then failed to respond to the issue.

So I think you're right Brix - some foot stamping and indignation to convince himself that he was hard done by, then he'll storm off.

Which is a shame, because I'm quite happy to hang in here for a proper debate.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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.

Doesn't take long to learn how to kiss ass, does it?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

dp

 

[Jazzz]

'the core would not stay up by itself'

Right, well let's at least wrap up that question by quoting one of TA's own posts, which he claims proves me wrong.

Such certainty is quite remarkable, given that the designer of the buildings actually said:

Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design.

Now that's quite clear: the various elements of the building are all acting together to redistribute the loads as (say) a giant space frame or girder. Why would you need it to do that if the core was so massive that it would stand all on its own?!?

Nope, you haven't understood it mate. The core is quite capable of taking the whole weight of the building, and then some, presumably with a large factor of redundancy. The space frame is not claimed to be at all necessary to keep the building up. What it is doing is correcting the problem of the outside of the building compressing more than the central core when the building is loaded - i.e.

'First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; 'at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated' - translates as fixes the levels at the top of the building so the top floor won't tilt at all, it can't quite get a perfect result lower down but will help minimise the problem

The next bit proves that the core would stay up by itself (as if it is needed):

"Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness"

That means that the core was helping the building deal with lateral forces - which implies that it was stabilising the building, not the building stabilising it. eh Crispy?

"Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design."

Pretty easy to understand. Icing on a cake. Note the 'additional redundancy and toughness'. Also note that a very simple steel rod can easily go to a height of 440 feet without buckling! Never mind thousands of tons of latticed H-sections over a wide footprint.

And yet despite the fact that you've never studied structural engineering, and at least 3 of us on this forum have to degree level, YOU know better than us. Amazing.

You said it.

 

[Yossarian]

So you know more about architecture than architects do?

 

[editor]

Tell you what Jazzz. Why not find a friend who has no interest in 9/11 and show them a print out of this thread and ask them if they think you've:

a) provided a dazzling argument that has ripped your opponents to bits
b) endlessly wriggled, obfuscated and squirmed
c) been humiliated, outclassed and outgunned and should have cut your losses an age ago

I suspect that it'll be either b or c.

But if you like, we could ask the question here and put it to the test. Would you like that?

 

[Jazzz]

Well, gee, I suspect it will be designed to do so.
Anyway, let's just say for a moment that the core could stand up on its own. Remind me again why this proves the demolition theory. It was many pages ago now.

The core is absolutely crucial. In order to explain the collapse, it is simply not good enough to wave hands in the air, and accept a theory that just collapses part of the building, and say well blah the core comes down. As the massive core is by far the strongest bit, able to deal with all gravity loads and lateral ones too, it makes sense to look at that in isolation. If we don't have a theory for collapsing the core then we don't have a theory for collapsing the building.

I have one - controlled demolition.

NIST doesn't. After $16 million dollars.
That means they haven't explained the collapse.

 

[laptop]

Multiple choice, please!

b) endlessly wriggled, obfuscated and squirmed
c) been humiliated, outclassed and outgunned and should have cut your losses an age ago

d) been utterly incapable of thinking in engineering terms - any building is a single system - and made a fool of self trying to deal with engineeting as if it were a cast of characters, or cards in a deck.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I have one - controlled demolition.

NIST doesn't. After $16 million dollars.
That means they haven't explained the collapse.

Yes they have, you're merely too ignorant to understand it. Your failing not theirs.