9/11 media happenings

[Flavour]

and yet not a single person noticed or reported that they had seen unusual activity from engineers/workers in the building in the weeks beforehand. How strange.

here's another thing: the demolitions team required to rig up both WTC towers would be massive... and unlike say, the conspiracy of the SS to exterminate european jewry, where unquestioning complicity of all those involved came after 10 years of a totalitarian fascist state, you believe all those responsible are keeping quiet in a democracy... err... ok! How were these hard-working americans (who, if you're right, worked VERY hard indeed) duped into going along with this????

come back when you've got first-hand testimony from someone who actually was involved with the implementation of this conspwiasee, like any one of the thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people you're instigating.

 

[Jazzz]

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

Oh, what was it? Please show me the link.

 

[8den]

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

Got out of the wrong side of the bed again Johnny?

Does your bed have a right side? Tell you what we'll stick your bed on the ledge of a skyscaper, guess what ledge we all think is the right side for you to get out of?

 

[TheArchitect]

Twin Towers Structural Design (1 of 2)

Jazz,

If you are honestly that ignorant of structural engineering, then it is going to be extremely difficult to explain all of the steps that go into understanding the design of buildings. I am willing to walk through it, if you are willing to listen. But this is absolutely proof positive that your feelings on the core structure are not based on any science at all. Your claims that the various quotes presented support your case are false, plain and simple.

I cannot convince you to apologise for your actions based on these misplaced beliefs. Only you can make amends. All that I can do is attempt to educate. I will do so now.

1. The principal design loads encountered in a tall building such as WTC are the dead load (the weight of the materials themselves), the live load (occupants and contents), and wind loads.

2. Even comparatively limited wind speeds can produce significant loads, because of the surface area, and it is important to appreciate that they will result in significant strains on the building; deflection is not constant across a face, raising torsional issues, the lee face will be in compression whilst the windward might be in compression, and so on.

3. It would be neither practical or economic to have one element carry all those loads; for example, the external envelope would have to comprise massive sections and cross bracing. The traditional (well, post-Louis Sullivan) approach has been a framed structure with frequent columns across the floor plate braced by large beam sections at floor level. Unfortunately this results in a significant loss of floor space and hence lower rental returns.

4. WTC therefore adopted what might be loosely termed a composite approach, with three principal structural elements acting together. A layman's comparison would be a space frame, which is far lighter and more efficient than a steel beam would be for the same loading.

5. The outer loadbearing facade comprised comparatively slim box sections, with staggered joints. This envelope carried the outer end of the floors (and hence around half the dead/live loads) and also the wind loadings.

6. The inner core comrpised section columns. These were significantly larger than the individual box sections because individually they were carrying greater loads (i.e. same or slightly larger loads, but less columns as available perimeter was less). In addition the core provided resistance to the bending moment caused by wind loads.

7. Of course for this system to work, it is necessary to transmit the loads betwixt the facade and the core. This was the work of the floor trusses, which redistributed wind loads (like a space frame) AND transmitted the dead/live loads to the other two elements.

8. An additional - and rather cute - feature of the design was the use of the so called hat trusses at high level; if you can imagine the bending moment in a high wind, one of the areas of greatest stress is at high level, and these trusses effectively acted as a very much beefed up version of the floors, stiffening the whole upper structure together and redistributing loads.

9. This is what Robertson - and the others - all mean when they say:

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.

11. Now, clearly the floor is supported at both ends and the loads largely distrbuted evenly (saving for allowance for the corners) between the outer facade and inner core. Similarly we know that cantilevering the floors from the core alone would be impractical due to cross-sectional sizes. Hence it is entirely wrong to suggest that the core was designed to take all floor loadings.

12. For a summary of mutch of the design, you might want to start with the FEMA report at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf .

 

[TheArchitect]

Part 2 of 2

Now we also have to look at what happened to the structure on 9/11:

1. The aircraft impacts caused damage to the cores through both connection (splice) failure and fracturing of the columns themselves. At WTC1 6 columns failed completely and 9 suffered significant damage. At WTC 2, 10 failed completely and 7 were badly damaged.

It is obvious that this would have compromised the ability of the core to carry loads.

2. We know that failure of the lightweight floor trusses led to buckling of the external facade over a significant area, to the point where the affected section could no longer carry any dead/live loads.

3. Some of this load was redistributed to adjacent external panels through the staggered jointing system (think of it as a natural arching structure) and some to the damaged inner core by way of the hat trusses. Neither had sufficient capacity to accept these loads, and failed - thus initiating the collapse.

4. The collapse of the floors and outer envelope would invariably lead to impact damage on the already weakened core. Whilst it is mass that would cause damage, it is nevertheless important to note that large sections of relatively intact debris can be clearly identified in photographs.

5. Similarly it is important to understand that the impact loads would not have been uniformly vertical. We know that parts of the structure tilted and rotated, placing transverse dynamic loads on the structure below. But the core was not built to accept transverse loads in isolation, only as part of the wider composite system. There would be little or no effective bracing.

6. In the same vein, the floors themselves were attached to the core and it would be niaive to believe that when dislodged the joints would neatly shear. Some damage to the core columns would be inevitable.

7. However this is largely academic as the outer envelope and core failed in quick succession as a result of redistributed loads.

8. Finally, suggestions that the core was exploded or otherwise weakened at low or foundation level are not supported by photographic evidence; we know that some parts of the lower core actually stood for 15 to 20 seconds following the main collapse. The photgraphs have already been posted, but are again included for completeness.

Now there is nothing - nothing - in either the original design or the actual collapse sequence to support a suggestion that the core would have stood as a freestanding structure or that explosives would have been required for its demolition. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Jazzz, I get the feeling that this 9/11 stuff is more of an article of faith with you than an opinion based on rational examination of data. It's like you want to believe the 'conspiracy', and even though many, many Non-Beliver people will come and explain carefully why your beliefs are erroneous, offering things like proof and facts, nonetheless you have invested The Belief with a lot of mental energy and you will cling on to what you hold as a belief, as if it were a revelation from God Him/Herself.

You also evangelise and proselytise, and TBH, the whole way conspiracy theorists who are into '9/11 Truth' carry on reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses or Born Again Christians or any other evangelical group.

The talk of the 'moment of awakening/paradigm shift', the decision to consciously believe and accept The Truth as revealed through teh gospel of the internet, the sharing of The Idea with fellow believers, the little meetings, the sense of persecution, the desire to Spread The Word... You could be the Early Church.

BUT the Early Church grew out of an idea that was impossible to disprove using evidence, since God, or Jesus being the Son of God cannot be proved or disproved in the same way that it can be proved that 2 planes flew into those buildings. So the '9/11 Truth movement' are unlikely to ever be anything more than a bunch of people who have a set of beliefs that can be proved wrong.

I don't doubt that the US Govt. failed to act on warnings, was arrogant and out of touch for years before 9/11, and shamelssly exploited the horrors of the terror attack for political gain. But that does not mean that they faked it, or blew the Towers up themselves. They must be thrilled about the 9/11 Truth movement, all that hysteria about what they didn't do lets everyone take their eye off the ball with ref. to all the shit they DO do.


Thing is, I don't think editor would put up with someone who came on here and carried on like this posting dozens and dozens of threads in order to try to get posters to Find And Accept the Lord Jesus, or who posted up Intelligent Design links as frequently as you and other Truthers post 9/11 links. Yet this '9/11' evangelising is somehow acceptable, even though it is boring and pointless. It is pointless because it is not an argument where both sides are open to ideas, it is like doing battle with a Creationist. And it is boring because it is an argument you will never drop, you just can't let go, it is like getting a believer to renounce their faith.

Fair enough, but why do you do it? Everyone can prove it wrong, but it deosn't matter to you, Jazz, because like I said, you have Faith in your idea, which is touching, but in the end, a bit deluded. I have heard from several people that you are a lovely bloke. But I have a lovely friend who is a Jehovah's Witness, which is fine, but a year ago she started to go on about it, and religion, all the time, and in the end her friends had to tell her she was just being a crashing bore, and people didn't want to talk about it at parties, on the phone, get sent missionary stuff via email links and all the rest of it


Perhaps the editor sees it as a public service to consistently dismantle these daft theories that run round the internet infecting people's ability to think rationally like viruses affect computers. And I don't have to read or respond to these threads, although I do , because I find the psychology of conspraloonery wierdly fascinating.

But it is, as I say, pointless to argue with you, Jazzz. It is quite touching that you have clung to your belief in 9/11 Truth despite everything, despite all the shit you get, after all this time, and if you were clinging to a belief in God, despite all the provocation, I'd have even more respect for your tenacity.

But, y'know, what's the point of posting it here? Really? Why bring all these coals down upon your head? How many times will you try? WTF? Argh.

 

[TheArchitect]

And this takes us neatly back to the substance of your case, Jazz.

We have at our disposal a wealth of highly detailed evidence and structural analysis regarding the collapse. Those of us trained in structures - and there are at least three of us on this site - have confirmed that it is entirely consistent with expectations.

You, on the other hand, have produced no detailed assessment of the original structure, or the damage caused by the impact, or indeed the collapse mechanism. No calculations. Nothing except a misinterpreted quote.

This is fairly typical of your approach to the collapse and by way of example I would respectfully remind you of your claim - ultimately disproven - that the fires were not particularly fierce. Or "near free fall times". And most recently, your complete failure to substantiate the "horizontal debris" issue.

It will not be me who runs away from this debate Jazz, and it will be you who remains on the losing side unless you can produce a more credible case.

 

[TheArchitect]

I don't doubt that the US Govt. failed to act on warnings, was arrogant and out of touch for years before 9/11, and shamelssly exploited the horrors of the terror attack for political gain. But that does not mean that they faked it, or blew the Towers up themselves. They must be thrilled about the 9/11 Truth movement, all that hysteria about what they didn't do let's everyone take their eye off the ball with ref. to all the shit they DO do.

Agreed, subject to the proviso that failure to act on warnings is most readily explained by government inertia/incompetence rather than LIHOP theories.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Agreed, subject to the proviso that failure to act on warnings is most readily explained by government inertia/incompetence rather than LIHOP theories.

conspiracy theories<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me

 

[Badger Kitten]

Cock-ups, yes,
Conspiracy Theories, No. IYSWIM.

 

[TheArchitect]

My, it does seem to have gone quiet.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

This thread has to be the best tearing apart of a non argument I've ever seen on the internet

I've learnt loads obout building design as well, cheers everyone

Sorry Jazzz, you have been made to look a complete and utter fool...

 

[TheArchitect]

Funny thing is, he's been online a good two or three times today (and for a fair while on each occassion) but seems strangely reluctant to post.

 

[Jazzz]

My, it does seem to have gone quiet.

It's gone quiet because you have utterly bored the pants of everyone with your patronising waffle, none of which countered or addressed what I said. At the start, other posters thought maybe you were the bees' knees, the guy who who could wrap up any debate.

Now they realise that you are exposed as simply the biggest bore ever. I suspect even Crispy, whose coat-tails you are not fit to touch, is finding you something of a pain.

Knowing what these threads are like, this is all an astonishing achievement. Usually they will go on heatedly until some method of death is forcibly applied. But this is perhaps the first time one looks like ending because no-one can be arsed anymore.

Reluctantly bothering to address your latest chunder, I said the core was capable of taking the entire weight of the building - not that it wouldn't share some of the load with the outside. You appear not to agree. Well chew on this quote from Thomas Eagar from a powerpoint presentation of his:

Eggcrate Construction

Inner Core carried gravity load - 500,000 t

and also refers to the WTC as 'one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient skyscrapers'

Factor in redudancy and the central core is obviously going to be capable able to hold up more than 500,000 t (the weight of a fully loaded WTC tower)

And my translation of Leslie Robertson's quote was perfectly accurate, far better than your waffle. We know from it that the central core would also help deal with lateral wind loads, transmitted via the hat truss (the building was designed not to transmit wind loads via the floors, contrary to what you say).

Because the central core could handle lateral loads and many, many times its own weight, that means that the central core was more than capable of holding itself up.

As if that wasn't fucking obvious just looking at it.

Doubtless you'll return with reams of more of the same patronising gumf

 

[editor]

It's gone quiet because you have utterly bored the pants of everyone with your patronising waffle, none of which countered or addressed what I said.

Oh, the irony!

Doubtless you'll return with reams of more of the same patronising gumf

I believe they're called 'facts.'

 

[teqniq]

Well that's a done deal innit? ET2A obviously not, ho hum

 

[Jazzz]

Oh, the irony!

I believe they're called 'facts.'

Do you want to point out which 'facts' produced by TA in his recent posts countered anything I said in my carefully-argued post #745, and which, if any, statements I made were wrong?

Or are you just shouting mindlessly from the sidelines?

 

[editor]

Or are you just shouting mindlessly from the sidelines?

Not shouting mate, but laughing at your laughable, piss-weak fruitloop arguments being utterly destroyed.

 

[Crispy]

As if that wasn't fucking obvious just looking at it.

Brilliant. A*
I'll return to your post 745 tomorrow, promise.

 

[Jazzz]

Not shouting mate, but laughing at your laughable, piss-weak fruitloop arguments being utterly destroyed.

err, no. Though I can see you would be fooled by a long rambling list.

 

[editor]

err, no. Though I can see you would be fooled by a long rambling list.

Just about everyone's supposedly "fooled" in your world, aren't they?

Scientists, experts and structural engineers the world over were fooled, every single person in the WTC was fooled by the invisible explosives, the crash investigators were fooled, the airlines were fooled, the insurance companies were fooled, universities conducting independent analysis were fooled - in fact just about every person on the entire planet was fooled by the events of 9/11, save for clever ol' Jazzz with his unqualified 'hunches' supported by barking websites run by DVD flogging nutters.

 

[Jazzz]

Well actually, though you won't have noticed it editor, theories of collapse have been varied and have completely changed from the initial FEMA stuff to the NIST one, so it's certain that loads of people got it wrong, whatever.

 

[8den]

Well actually, though you won't have noticed it editor, theories of collapse have been varied and have completely changed from the initial FEMA stuff to the NIST one, so it's certain that loads of people got it wrong, whatever.

G'wan the Jazzz the Don Quixote of conpsiracy theorist, tilting at the windmills of facts, engineering, logic, science, architecture, video, holographic information, demolition experts, critical thinking, physics, countless eye witnesses, and er...Jesus mate you not knackered attacking all those fucking dragons? Instead of attacking singular windmills of science and progression why not just have a go at holand instead?

 

[MikeMcc]

It's gone quiet because you have utterly bored the pants of everyone with your patronising waffle, none of which countered or addressed what I said. At the start, other posters thought maybe you were the bees' knees, the guy who who could wrap up any debate.

Now they realise that you are exposed as simply the biggest bore ever. I suspect even Crispy, whose coat-tails you are not fit to touch, is finding you something of a pain.

Knowing what these threads are like, this is all an astonishing achievement. Usually they will go on heatedly until some method of death is forcibly applied. But this is perhaps the first time one looks like ending because no-one can be arsed anymore.

Reluctantly bothering to address your latest chunder, I said the core was capable of taking the entire weight of the building - not that it wouldn't share some of the load with the outside. You appear not to agree. Well chew on this quote from Thomas Eagar from a powerpoint presentation of his:



and also refers to the WTC as 'one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient skyscrapers'

Factor in redudancy and the central core is obviously going to be capable able to hold up more than 500,000 t (the weight of a fully loaded WTC tower)

And my translation of Leslie Robertson's quote was perfectly accurate, far better than your waffle. We know from it that the central core would also help deal with lateral wind loads, transmitted via the hat truss (the building was designed not to transmit wind loads via the floors, contrary to what you say).

Because the central core could handle lateral loads and many, many times its own weight, that means that the central core was more than capable of holding itself up.

As if that wasn't fucking obvious just looking at it.

Doubtless you'll return with reams of more of the same patronising gumf

You missed the bit from that presentation where it mentions that the falling mass was > 45,000t and the overload ratio between the forces experienced and the design specs was 64.5! The reference to Prof Bazant is covered in more detail in the realplayer presentation on this site where the man himself actually goes through the details of his findings.

http://dev.nuamps.at.northwestern.edu/WTC/index.htm

ETA: On looking at the presentation again the factor of 64 was the forces caused by the impact pressure wave conpared to the maximum surviveable load. In other words the entire structure was completely screwed once it started to collapse.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz, oh Jazz

Jazz,

Just before I respond to your latest attempt at a reply, you might want to bear in mind this famous quote (well, famous if you ever actually studied physics at school):

I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.

 

[TheArchitect]

Right, WTC Weight

Right Jazz, lets start holding your latest reply up to the cold light of scrutiny and see how it fares.

The first issue I want to look at is the weight of the towers. If we search for published values of the mass of WTC 1 or 2, the number quoted is often close to 500,000,000 kg or 500,000 tonnes. Some US sources quote tons rather than tonnes, however as 1 ton = 1.016 tonnes the difference is not particularly relevant.

But where does this number come from?

It's certainly quoted frequently; the University of Sydney piece which I linked to several posts ago says:

Since the mass of the combined towers is close to 1000000 tons, finding evidence will be an enormous task.

I have never seen a detailed calculation of the mass of WTC 1 or 2, although the design engineers would undoubtedly have made such calculations. There are plenty of references on the web for the weight of the materials used in the construction of the WTC Towers. For example, the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower. I have also seen the weight of aluminum cladding reported to be 2,000,000 kg, and the weight of wallboard quoted at 8,000,000 kg per Tower, giving a total weight of structural materials of 154,000,000 kg per Tower.

Now let’s add in reasonable “guesstimates” for plumbing fixtures (5,000,000, kg), air conditioning (5,000,000 kg), electrical and telecommunication wiring (5,000,000 kg) and we have an additional 15,000,000 kg of structural mass that civil engineers always include as part of the “dead load” of a building. Thus combining all these contributions, we arrive at a weight, or dead load, of 169,000,000 kg for one WTC Tower. Surprisingly this accounts for only about 1/3rd of the oft-quoted 500,000,000 kg, so where is the missing mass?

The answer would appear to be in what we call the live load of the building, which in the case of one WTC Tower would have to be (500,000,000 - 169,000,000) kg or 331,000,000 kg, i.e., twice the dead load! We will show that this result leads to major problems …..

But first, let’s convert our load data in to more familiar engineering units based on floor areas. Building regulations usually express loads in kilograms per square meter (kg/m^2) or Newtons. For example, the specification for a high live load capacity floor is typically about 750 kg/m^2.

From the dimensions of a WTC Tower we estimate the available floor area per Tower was about 320,000 square metres. Hence, the live load was 331,000,000 kg divided by 320,000 m^2 which is equal to 1034 kg/m^2. We see from the live load example given in the previous paragraph represents a very high live loading. But let’s look at just how high this load is…..

If the live loading within one WTC Tower really was 331,000,000 kg (more or less), that equals 3,009,091 kg per floor or about 3000 tonnes per floor!! If we say that each WTC Tower employed about 15,000 people so we have an average of 136 people per floor. This means that each person working in the Twin Towers contributed about 22 tonnes of live load!!! That's an awful lot of office furniture, computers, printers, telephones..... or am I missing something?

Now if we look on the web, we find the following weights for other tall buildings - note, in passing, that these employed pro-rata heavier traditional structures than WTC:

Empire State Building, NYC = 365,000,000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223,000,000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 174,500,000 kg

By now, Jazz, you will be wondering why I'm pointing this out. There are three reasons:

1. To show you why it is inappropriate to simply take a figure from the web and, with absolutely no understanding of building structures, simply take it as read. It is important to look at the figure, consider it critically, and come to a educated view on its likely accuracy.

2. To demonstrate why "gut reactions" or "common sense" views are a particularly poor way to approach any technical issue, never mind one as complex as the structural design of some of the tallest buildings in the world.

3. To show that even if we accept the 500,000 tonnes as a working figure this is going to represent the entire of each tower above foundation level; outer skin, floors, floor loadings, inner core, and any rooftop structures.

You'll see where this is going in a minute.

 

[TheArchitect]

Debunking Jazz Part II

Now, let's have a look at what Edgar - the source which you have chosen to support your case - says about weight and structural loads.

I'd like to start with two quotes, both from his more comprehensive piece at

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Firstly, we have:

The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t

And later he comments:

could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above

What is quite clear from this is that even Edgar takes the 500,000 tonnes to be a global weight; dead load including core, floors, and outer perimeter plus the live load of occupants and contents.

Now let's look again at the structure:

- Central core comprising columns

- Outer facade comprising hollow box sections

- Concrete floor slab on truss beams, supported at each end by the above

You base your post on Edgar's quote that the core

was designed to support the weight of the tower

This appears a few times in his article and in his presentation, however because you are unfamiliar with structural issues you don't place this in any proper context. It's similarly clear you've not thought it through yourself:

1. 500,000tonnes is a total weight.

2. The floor slabs were not cantilevered, but supported on angle connections at each end. Therefore half of the floor load must clearly have been supported at the external envelope.

3. In the same manner, the floors were clearly not designed to transmit the envelope dead (gravity) load back to the core - member size, connection detail, and so on are all wholly unsuitable. Hence the external envelope carries its own load to foundation level.

On this basis it's quite clear that the central core was not designed to take the complete load of 500,000 tonnes and there is no reason to assume that it ever could have.

I'll be returning to Edgar's paper once I have a bite to eat....

 

[Techno303]

It's gone quiet because you have utterly bored the pants of everyone with your patronising waffle, none of which countered or addressed what I said. At the start, other posters thought maybe you were the bees' knees, the guy who who could wrap up any debate.

Now they realise that you are exposed as simply the biggest bore ever. I suspect even Crispy, whose coat-tails you are not fit to touch, is finding you something of a pain.

Knowing what these threads are like, this is all an astonishing achievement. Usually they will go on heatedly until some method of death is forcibly applied. But this is perhaps the first time one looks like ending because no-one can be arsed anymore.

I rather enjoy his posts. He is making you like a bit of tit!

 

[detective-boy]

.... or am I missing something?

Yes. You are. The invisible explosives ...

You'll see where this is going in a minute.

No, no! Let me guess .... er ... is it downwards? ...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

err, no. Though I can see you would be fooled by a long rambling list.

Every single time we can pin you down on a particular theory someone rips you to shreds. In this case it's TheArchitect, to whom your only reply is that his posts are "waffle".

His posts have information, facts and figures, yours have handwaving disbelief and misquotes. Why am i not responding to your question earlier? Because you didn't bother to respond to mine.