Jazzz said:
I made a minor error where I suggested that ALL fire was out at the South Tower - other than that I've been shown totally correct in that there was no actual evidence of any 'inferno' - there wasn't
That isn't quite true, is it Jazz?
What you actually claimed initially was that the WTC2 fires were limited in extent, based upon the report of the fire crew that reached the 78th floor. On this basis you questioned the NIST fire modelling. However we showed that the principal impact was actually on the 80th and 81st floors, which is wholly consistent with the evidence of widespread fires.
You then claimed that there was little smoke and flame immediately prior to the collapse. A simple series of photographs then proved this to be wholly incorrect as well.
Your most recent whopper is to draw parallels between the photographs of Windsor and WTC. The most obvious problem with this is that the former were taken at night, and hence the fires are far more visible anyway.
To top it all, you quoted an article in support of your structural arguments - and which one would therefore tend to assume you endorsed - which itself made quite clear that the fire could cause the collapse in a broadly similar way to that suggested by NIST. You debunked yourself!
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a structure labelled 'incredibly redudant' would have a significant redundancy factor. 600% seems hardly unreasonable. On the contrary, 100% (the figure you seem to want me to accept) is obviously way off.
Again, this doesn't actually come close to reality. Perhaps you should try re-reading the recent posts.
Your working hypothesis seems to be that the load from the facade and floor failures should have redistributed to the core via the hat trusses, and that the core should have been able to take these increased loads; hence it was demolition.
However in doing so you make a number of fundamental errors which demonstrate just how limited your understanding of structural engineering really is. This include, for example, the composite nature of the overall structure or the relative cross-sectional area of steel for core and outer envelopes respectively.
Particularly spectacular is your failure to recognise the damage to the core columns would potentially undermine your own argument, and then reposting one of MY images which show parts of the core standing briefly after the collapse. Doh!
A key aspect of your argument regarding core stability is a supposed 600% redundancy. Except you can't actually give us a source for this or any calculations. Which just goes to show how unrealiable such a figure is.
Let me show you how safety factors really worked at the towers:
The allowable stress design criteria used at WTC had an inherent factor of safety for structural components. For example, the safety factor for yielding and buckling was:
• 1.67 and 1.92 for core columns in the original design and SOP cases, and for all columns in refined NIST estimate case.
• 1.26 and 1.44 for perimeter columns in the original design and SOP case (discounting the 1/3 increase in allowable stress under wind loads).
• After reaching the yield strength, structural steel components continue to have significant reserve capacity, thus allowing for load redistribution to other components that are still in the elastic range.
(I assume that you know the difference between plastic and elastic structural methods, but if not it would just confirm how little you really know about this field).
As designed, the demand/capacity ratios for the columns were about .86 for the core columns and .75 for the exterior columns. As noted above, these elements would have reserve capacity, but I'm not aware of a breakdown of numbers for that. You can find lots of DCR figures, charts and drawings in NIST NCSTAR 1-2A, starting on page 87.
The safety factor for overturning under wind load varied between 1.9-2.7, depending on tower and wind direction. That's also good number to hit him with, since wind load was the main structural concern. That's also in report 1-2A.
These figures are entirely consistent with structural expectations; do feel free to tell me where you think I might have made a mistake - and I'll be expecting facts and figures, not wild hand-waving.
You suggested at the start of the thread that it was only the 'squibs' which were possible evidence of CD. As has been shown there are plenty of other considerations to be looked at. One of those might be the nature of the dust cloud (incidentally its also claimed that the energy required to pulverise to concrete into the fine powder would be more than the gravitational energy of the collapse). I haven't made a big deal about it. If you are going bananas over the semantics (I should have said 'akin to a pyroclastic flow) then well.
Jazz, you were challenged to state your case in detail. YOU used the term pyroclastic flow, which is wholly innacurate, not me. If you can't accurately describe what YOU think happened, then how do you expect the rest of us to understand what you say?
CTers point to the billowing dust clouds present during the collapse of the WTC towers as evidence that explosive were used. Some, like Judy Wood, see the Clouds as vaporising steel due to some space based energy beam weapon. Others sees the dust clouds as proof that the concrete was "totally puverised" with explosive.
What amazes me is that none of you seem to fathom that concrete, plasterboard, and insulation can collide with larger debris during the collapse in order to form the billowing dust clouds.
If you think that the dust clouds show something different, then you tell us EXACTLY what you think this is. Don't expect the sane amongst us to do your own CT homework for you.
Whilst you panic about how to do this, here is another building falling just due to fire and gravity - no aircraft this time
If you were in my position mate you might be wondering why you were wasting your time bothering with someone who seemingly has all day to misrepresent and patronise, and produce huge childish lists of 'points'.
YOU have accused the US Government of
killing 3,000 of it's own men, women and children. I understand from other posters that this is a position which you have consistently expounded for some considerable period of time. I challenged you to explain this hypothesis.
Every single piece of evidence you have thus far posted has been thoroughly debunked. Your interpretation of supporting documents and statements has been shown to be poor. Quotes have been cherry picked. Some items - such as the 600% redundancy - appear to have no basis whatsoever. On top of this, you run away from arguments (for example the horizontal ejection of debris).
You are guilt of intellectual dishonesty, Jazz. Your belief in the complicity of the US Government in 9/11 is not based on any meaningful analysis of facts, but rather on a predetermined knee-jerk assumption that the evil NWO pulled the whole thing off.
I confess, I am thoroughly weary of you and am failing to see the point of attempting to address your concerns just so you can repeat the same crap.I might continue with Crispy, although he seems not to have come back as promised. Enough of you TA.
I think we can safely take that as confirmation that you have been defeated, Jazz.
I genuinely forgot about that. I may have been a little drunk while posting. But like I said, even if the core could stand up by itself (which I'll admit is a possibility), it still wouldn't survive the rest of the building collapsing around it. It's not like a stripper dropping her skirts.
Anway, off for some lunch.
