9/11 media happenings

[TheArchitect]

Edgar and Co

Now Jazz, one of the things that you've got to careful about doing is cherry picking quotes from articles - as your misrepresentation of the Fire Engineering piece shows. Edgar is no different, because in actual fact he very much tends to weigh in with findings which are directly at odds with your own speculation.

Let's have a look at his 2001 article - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html and his February 2002 presentation - http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf.

One of the first things his article inadvertently does is rubbish suggestions that smoke colour indicated a minor fire.

It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke

.

He then goes on to deal with failure of steel due to "normal" office fires:

It is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Temperature of tower fires about the same as typical office fires

Very fast and thorough dispersion of fire

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire...The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

It is then his view that this caused the floor failure and hence collapse:

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips

Now of course these pieces were written soon after the collapse, and Edgar didn't have access to all the evidence. We know, for example, that the collapse was caused by the inwards bowing of the facade in conjunction with sagging of floor slabs. Nevertheless the one thing he doesn't identify is anything suspicious in the collapse pattern.

Then he makes some telling comments about the ability (or otherwise) of the lower part of the structure to significantly arrest the collapsing upper portion:

Basant and Zhou (Northwestern University) estimate overload ratio of 64.5 at time of impact.

Lower loads could not support falling load

I think it's quite clear from this, Jazz, that your own chosen source comprehensively discredits your own theory!

 

[TheArchitect]

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?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that everything in your post #745 was subsequently proven to be wrong, and that you've failed to come up with a competent response.

I can spot a trend there.

I have to ask you once again: given that so many of your theories have been proven to be completely wrong, how can you claim to have carried out any sort of sensible analysis of the collapse?



ETA: Still waiting on your response re: horizontal ejection of debris.

 

[tarannau]

Shh... you'll bore Jazz with all this reality and truth stuff.

He's probably having a little daydream right now, imagining himself lecturing to the world's foremost architects and designers why they're wrong and he's right. Koolhaas - NO! - you don't want to build it like that, he's saying mid-dream, you don't understand.

It's a bit of Jazzz's recurring dream, you know just after the bit where he saves Blighty from the Nazis single handed, clears Aids from Africa using liberal doses of Pentawater and becomes Prime Minister, appointing David Icke Chancellor. It's also just before the bit of the dream when he rescues Princess Diana, escaping from the Paris Tunnel using a hole dug by Ian Huntley and the USAF...

 

[TheArchitect]

I can only assume that he's applying Mies' "less is more" quote to the degree of accuracy he uses in his conspiracy theories.

 

[editor]

I have to ask you once again: given that so many of your theories have been proven to be completely wrong, how can you claim to have carried out any sort of sensible analysis of the collapse?
.

Don't forget that this is the guy who - after five looooong years of 'truthseeking' and 'analysis' - still thought the WTC was built using super giant, colossus-like cranes the like of which the world has yet to see!

 

[TheArchitect]

Don't forget that this is the guy who - after five looooong years of 'truthseeking' and 'analysis' - still thought the WTC was built using super giant, colossus-like cranes the like of which the world has yet to see!

For a man so sure of himself, he really doesn't seem to have bothered conducting any research or anything.

Quoting an article is support of your case, which then turns out to actually completely trash your theory, that's just spectacularly daft.

 

[goldenecitrone]

4, 5, 6, 7...please don't let him get up. I can't bear the cruelty.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

It's gone quiet because you have utterly bored the pants of everyone with your patronising waffle

Oh dear oh dear.

The only person "bored" by TA is you, becuase he's making you look a right tit. I've found TAs posts to be very interesting indeed, its great to see someone who clearly knows what they are talking about, and can back it up with credible sources and calculations.

As for "waffle" - is that what conspiraloons call facts nowadays?


Oh, and you haven't answered my question earlier about if you still think missiles were fired from the planes as well as controlled demolition taking place

 

[TheArchitect]

Incidentally, proof that lots of things sound like explosions: listen to the bolt failure on this video of the Miller Park accident back in the late 90s.



Incidentally, Jazz, why didn't the crane stand up on it's own and why did it need all the tensions wires and kentilidge?

 

[Jazzz]

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....

errr. it's Eagar's paper, not Edgar

Your logic doesn't quite follow. Firstly, I haven't disputed that the outer envelope took some of the weight. What I have said is that the central core was capable of taking the whole lot. Nothing you have said counts otherwise.

This is a devious error in logic - you are saying that because the core did not take all the weight then it cannot have been designed to be capable of doing so. Obviously, that's not correct.

I found a figure for the redundancy of the core - 600%.

Also even if your comment about the floors was right (I don't necessarily accept that, if they are rigidly fixed they will be able to load up the core more than the outside), your statement about the outer envelope taking half the load is flawed. For two reasons - load may well be concentrated near the core (things like lifts, services, etc., indeed the weight of the steel itself, observation masts), and also the hat truss which you were so keen to wax on about was quite capable of transmitting vertical load from the shell to the core - that's why it was there.

But, even if we take your figure of 50% - well that 250000 tons. Multiply that by six (factor of redundancy) and we have 3 million tons. I note you have avoided any mention of redundancy.

So, you are still telling me that the inner core, made of incredibly thick steel, capable of holding up at least 3 million tons, and likely much much more, could not stand up for itself?

Hahahaha.

 

[WouldBe]

This is a devious error in logic - you are saying that because the core did not take all the weight then it cannot have been designed to be capable of doing so. Obviously, that's not correct.

It doesn't matter if the core was or wasn't designed to take the whole weight the floors definately weren't and therefore couldn't possibly transfer the weight from the outer wall through to the core.

As that is the case why on earth would the core be designed to be able to take the whole weight of the tower?

 

[Jazzz]

Incidentally, Jazz, why didn't the crane stand up on it's own and why did it need all the tensions wires and kentilidge?

It could stand up on its own. It was dealing with a large load, way off its own centre of gravity. Also, unless I'm mistaken, it didn't have any foundations, certainly not deep foundations into Manhattan bedrock - very helpful when it comes to resisting overturning moments, no?

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz

I'm afraid that all you're doing is amply demonstrating your lack of structural expertise together with a strange inability - or reluctance - to logically address the case put to you in posts.

As usual, we're going to have to remind ourselves what you originally claimed:

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).

However you start to inch away from this fairly quickly:

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.

Despite the fact that you also said:

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.

So which is it Jazz? What do you claim you believe at this moment?

 

[TheArchitect]

Your logic doesn't quite follow. Firstly, I haven't disputed that the outer envelope took some of the weight. What I have said is that the central core was capable of taking the whole lot. Nothing you have said counts otherwise.

Well actually, as my last post shows, you've said several different things. My particular favourite is the suggestion that the outer envelope should also have stood up on it's own, but there you go.

This is a devious error in logic - you are saying that because the core did not take all the weight then it cannot have been designed to be capable of doing so. Obviously, that's not correct.

I found a figure for the redundancy of the core - 600%.

I note with interest that you've not posted a source for that figure, presumably because you're fed up with me actually checking such things. I therefore took the opportunity to have a quick look on the internet.

The first source I found was this woowoo site. You'll notice that it too gives no source for the figure. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

A bit more hunting led me to the widely discredited Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) at http://www.physics911.net/reynolds. Funnily enough, despite their google summaries, I can't actually find the reference to 600% in any of their pages.

I then went to http://physics911.ca/Reynolds:_Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center_Towers. This repeats the 600% claim, but without any source or calculations.

Infowars runs with Reynolds unsubstantiated figures too - http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/reynolds_why_did_wtc_skyscrapers_collaps.htm.

So unless you can produce a source, Jazz, I think we're going to have to take 600% as unsubstantiated.

In stark contrast, let's look at the level of structural modelling which NIST put into the building. It's interesting to note that they don't actually make such sweeping statements about safety margins and redundancy, but instead show just how complex the engineering issues are:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2A.pdf

Also even if your comment about the floors was right (I don't necessarily accept that, if they are rigidly fixed they will be able to load up the core more than the outside), your statement about the outer envelope taking half the load is flawed.

Jazz, take a look at the connection details for the floor; a simple pinned joint supported on an angle (and elastomeric damper) at each end. Look at the lightweight trusses. It is impossible for such a detail to cantilever from the core, or indeed transmit gravity loads from envelope to core (or vice versa). This is basic engineering, and if you don't understand it then there is very little chance that you will ever follow the issues we're discussing.

But, even if we take your figure of 50% - well that 250000 tons. Multiply that by six (factor of redundancy) and we have 3 million tons. I note you have avoided any mention of redundancy.

Well for startes the actual figure would be 1.5 million tonnes, which doesn't encourage confidence in your grasp of maths, however notwithstanding this error you can't - at the moment - substantiate your 600% figure.

So, you are still telling me that the inner core, made of incredibly thick steel, capable of holding up at least 3 million tons, and likely much much more, could not stand up for itself?

You do seem to have rather ignored the following important points which were put to you:

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 photographs have already been posted, but are again included for completeness.

I am particularly amazed that you continue to ignore the fact that the core columns had already damaged by the aircraft impact. Hint - broken and damaged columns will adversely affect loadbearing capacity.

 

[TheArchitect]

And Another Thing, Jazz

Just while I remember, Jazz

1. Horizontal debris? Still waiting for your response there.

2. Haven't seen your calcs rebutting the collapse time issue yet. Still working on them?

3. You seem to have ignored the fact that the article you quoted in support of the weight of the towers actually trashed your collapse theory.

Or do I get to add these to the ongoing list of points you got caught out on already?

 

[TheArchitect]

It could stand up on its own. It was dealing with a large load, way off its own centre of gravity. Also, unless I'm mistaken, it didn't have any foundations, certainly not deep foundations into Manhattan bedrock - very helpful when it comes to resisting overturning moments, no?

You forgot to tell us why the bolt snapping sounded just like an explosion, Jazz. Controlled demolition, perhaps?

 

[TheArchitect]

Hahahaha.

Indeed. But we're not laughing with you.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I found a figure for the redundancy of the core - 600%

Interesting that you don't quote a source for this.

I wonder why

 

[Bob_the_lost]

This is a devious error in logic - you are saying that because the core did not take all the weight then it cannot have been designed to be capable of doing so. Obviously, that's not correct.

I found a figure for the redundancy of the core - 600%.

Or in other words it was capable of taking an overload of 6 times, not the 64 that has been calculated. Way to go Jazzz, way to go.

For two reasons - load may well be concentrated near the core (things like lifts, services, etc., indeed the weight of the steel itself, observation masts), and also the hat truss which you were so keen to wax on about was quite capable of transmitting vertical load from the shell to the core - that's why it was there.

Jazzz, that IS the core. Nothing to do with the floors, those are all part of the core section. Have you never looked at a diagram of the towers?

So, you are still telling me that the inner core, made of incredibly thick steel,

Incredibly thick? How thick are you? The steel tubes were several inches thick. That's not incredible. Nor have you addressed the deformation of these tubular steel sections that would destroy any structural strength.

 

[detective-boy]

You forgot to tell us why the bolt snapping sounded just like an explosion, Jazz. Controlled demolition, perhaps?

Small tornado? .... Nooooooo! Controlled demolition, surely ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6190372.stm

A bolt of lightning? ...... Nooooooo! Controlled demolition, surely .....

http://impartialreporter.com/archive/2000-09-28/news/story975.html

A car? Landing on the patio? ...... Nooooooo! Controlled demolition, surely ....

http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2004/6/4/113435.html

A fight? Involving Oasis? .... Noooooo! Controlled demolition, surely .....

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1344422002

Suddenly realising the benefits of Ju-Jitsu training? ... Nooooooo! Controlled demolition, surely ...

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~aus050/articles/trainbodymind.php

Tracey, coming into a room? ...... Noooooo! Controlled demolition, surely ....

http://www.ppwh.org.uk/index.cfm/page/41

 

[editor]

What comes after 'pwned'?

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz,

I know that you're reluctant to answer difficult questions or address facts (cf, by way of example, the horizontal debris) but I just realised that you had also gone very quiet on your pyroclastic flow argument.

Here are a couple of videos showing building demolitions where explosive are not used. yet there are similar billowing clouds of dust/"pyroclastic" flows. Explain them:


Building collapse with billowing cloud of dust no explosives


sequential collapse, cloud of billowing dust, no explosives

 

[WouldBe]

Building collapse with billowing cloud of dust no explosives

*awaits theory of 1000ft high invisible digger*

 

[TheArchitect]

*awaits theory of 1000ft high invisible digger*

Based on a culpable misquote, no doubt!

 

[Jazzz]

Well actually, as my last post shows, you've said several different things. My particular favourite is the suggestion that the outer envelope should also have stood up on it's own, but there you go.

I note with interest that you've not posted a source for that figure, presumably because you're fed up with me actually checking such things. I therefore took the opportunity to have a quick look on the internet.

The first source I found was this woowoo site. You'll notice that it too gives no source for the figure. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

A bit more hunting led me to the widely discredited Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) at http://www.physics911.net/reynolds. Funnily enough, despite their google summaries, I can't actually find the reference to 600% in any of their pages.

I then went to http://physics911.ca/Reynolds:_Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center_Towers. This repeats the 600% claim, but without any source or calculations.

Infowars runs with Reynolds unsubstantiated figures too - http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/reynolds_why_did_wtc_skyscrapers_collaps.htm.

So unless you can produce a source, Jazz, I think we're going to have to take 600% as unsubstantiated.

In stark contrast, let's look at the level of structural modelling which NIST put into the building. It's interesting to note that they don't actually make such sweeping statements about safety margins and redundancy, but instead show just how complex the engineering issues are:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2A.pdf

Jazz, take a look at the connection details for the floor; a simple pinned joint supported on an angle (and elastomeric damper) at each end. Look at the lightweight trusses. It is impossible for such a detail to cantilever from the core, or indeed transmit gravity loads from envelope to core (or vice versa). This is basic engineering, and if you don't understand it then there is very little chance that you will ever follow the issues we're discussing.

Well for startes the actual figure would be 1.5 million tonnes, which doesn't encourage confidence in your grasp of maths, however notwithstanding this error you can't - at the moment - substantiate your 600% figure.

You do seem to have rather ignored the following important points which were put to you:

I am particularly amazed that you continue to ignore the fact that the core columns had already damaged by the aircraft impact. Hint - broken and damaged columns will adversely affect loadbearing capacity.

I am trying to stick to the single issue which I thought was under discussion - whether the core (undamaged) would stay up by itself. As this is something we don't agree on, and should be very clear cut, it seems to be worth focusing on. So that's why I haven't gone on about core damage. However if I was, I could point out that in the NIST model, the extraordinary assumption was made that if a core column had ANY damage it was considered to have totally failed. Another assumption was that there was absolutely no heat conducted down the columns! Yet another was that the plane hit the South Tower flush rather than at an angle... (source - 'Building a Better Mirage') these are all plenty enough to rubbish the NIST simulation.

But most importantly, one doesn't have to, because as I've already explained (and challenged BTL, who fell silent on the issue) is that NIST don't even bother explaining the collapse itself - it just models the WTC up to the point of failure - which of course it can make all the assumptions about the fire temperature/column damage it needs to do. So - we don't actually have a theory of how the building collapsed at all.

Of course the central core could stand for itself - as highlighted, uttery skinny top-heavy cranes with no foundations weighing just a few tons can rise very high, and then swing their own weight around in loads too - it's really very obvious that a core comprising of 47 columns made of incredibly thick steel (10cm at the base) with deep foundations into bedrock and interlatticed - able to hold millions of tons is going to go pretty much as high as you damn well like.

I note you poke fun at my factor of redundancy, but it seems a pretty reasonable one to me, indeed perhaps low for a structure labelled incredibly redundant. Perhaps you could inform us of the the factor of redundancy that you use in your buildings?

I note also that while happy to go on about the floors, you ignored the point about the hat truss being able to hold up the outer shell via the core.

I emailed both Mr. Eagar and Tim Wilkinson on the question of whether the central core would stand up for itself. Interestingly, neither has responded, which surprises me as all here consider it a simple proposition.

 

[Crispy]

But as has been pointed out, a 600% factor of redundancy does you no good when the forces involved are 6000% over the designed capacity. 6450% if I remember right. Was all that load transmitted to the core? No. If only a tenth was, that's still too much. Once the structure had failed, collapse was inevitable - the forces involved were 10 times what even your 600% could withstand.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz,

I know that you're reluctant to answer difficult questions or address facts (cf, by way of example, the horizontal debris) but I just realised that you had also gone very quiet on your pyroclastic flow argument.

Here are a couple of videos showing building demolitions where explosive are not used. yet there are similar billowing clouds of dust/"pyroclastic" flows. Explain them:


Building collapse with billowing cloud of dust no explosives


sequential collapse, cloud of billowing dust, no explosives

You are right that 'pyroclastic' refers specifically to volcanic flows. I should have said 'akin to a pyroclastic surge'. Those videos don't look akin to pyroclastic flows at all to me - they look like simple clouds blowing with the wind, rather than the extroardinary billowing upon billowing forming 'cauliflower' patterns - formed by the ejection of thick dust into air under tremendous pressure.

A pyroclastic surge - video

 

[Crispy]

Buildings in TheArchitect's linked videos = less than 10 stories.
World Trade Center = more than 100 storeys.

Volume of WTC tower = 1 600 000 cubic meters, roughly
Of which 50% air = 800 000 cubic meters
which was expelled in the 12 seconds it took for the tower to fall = some big fucking clouds

 

[Jazzz]

But as has been pointed out, a 600% factor of redundancy does you no good when the forces involved are 6000% over the designed capacity. 6450% if I remember right. Was all that load transmitted to the core? No. If only a tenth was, that's still too much. Once the structure had failed, collapse was inevitable - the forces involved were 10 times what even your 600% could withstand.

So you aren't contesting any more that the core could hold itself up, which was the point I was making in particular.

If I need to comment about collapse initiation and the core - how did it start? Obviously no-one sliced the core up, raise the whole upper section, and then let it fall down again. But if not how else did it fail? I cannot think of a way other than buckling. But in that case, the tower should have toppled. Of course, NIST, nor any other official body, appear to have addressed this question.

 

[Techno303]

You are right that 'pyroclastic' refers specifically to volcanic flows. I should have said 'akin to a pyroclastic surge'. Those videos don't look akin to pyroclastic flows at all to me - they look like simple clouds blowing with the wind, rather than the extroardinary billowing upon billowing forming 'cauliflower' patterns - formed by the ejection of thick dust into air under tremendous pressure.

If it was a CD, how the flying fuck would that cause ‘pyroclastic’ flow? For fuck's sake! And what do you mean by “akin to a pyroclastic surge”. What the fuck does that mean? Let’s just drop this utter, utter drivel and concentrate on the collapsing core, which at least has some argument in it.