9/11 media happenings

[editor]

Tell you what, Jazzz: shall I append a poll on to this thread and ask people if they think you've answered the points raised or not?

Surely that would clear up any confusion and, perhaps, reveal that you really are refusing to address the issues raised.

 

[Jazzz]

You really are deluding yourself here.

Why can't you either come up with credibly sourced* scientific rebuttals to the his claims or just admit that you're wrong?

So far you've run away from everyone of his arguments. Why won;t you back up your '600%' claim for example? You made the claim -why can't you properly back it up?

(*this means written by suitably qualified authorities on the subject, not bonkers conspiracy-obsessed websites written by people with ZERO specialist skills in the areas concerned).

Name one of his arguments which I haven't addressed to your satisfaction, and I'll go over it for you.

 

[Crispy]

His debating method has been full of facts, and you continue to sidestep around the issues. TA provided extensive figures for the actual redundancy built into the structure (highest figure 1.92) which you seem to have ignored, or at least not responded to. Now, I'm sorry, but I just can't find your arguments convincing. I conaider myself open-minded, and if confronted by convincing facts, I would be willing to accept the theory that the wtc towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. I am yet to read any. I repeat, I would be willing to change my mind.

 

[Jazzz]

Tell you what, Jazzz: shall I append a poll on to this thread and ask people if they think you've answered the points raised or not?

Surely that would clear up any confusion and, perhaps, reveal that you really are refusing to address the issues raised.

If you want to do such a poll, you are welcome to do it on a separate thread. It would of course be damn low to tack on polls contrary to the wishes of the thread starter, one assumes but is not entirely certain that you aren't that childish.

 

[TheArchitect]

I never claimed that 600% was gospel. Just that it seemed a reasonable benchmark for a structure considered (by Thomas Eagar, no conspiracy theorist) 'incredibly redundant'. You've gone bananas over needing a source for this yet you haven't come up with anything to suggest that it isn't a reasonable figure for the napkin calculation.

Jazz, the only figure you have ever produced regarding core capacity is 600%. You have been wholly unable to provide a source or calculation for this. The only thing you have are general comments about redundancy.

In contrast, I refer you to the figures I gave above. If you can find a mistake in them, I'll be glad to hear it.

Your simply not presenting a competent argument. If you think that hand waving and generalities are sufficient to hang your claims on, then you have another thing coming. You haven't even been able to proeprly respond to my calculations regarding the weight of the tower, for heaven's sake!

Indeed, need I remind you that your one attempt to provide a source resulted in a paper that debunked your own theories about the fire?

In short: put up, or shut up. Respond to the technical points put to you, in a detailed manner, or admit defeat.

 

[TheArchitect]

Name one of his arguments which I haven't addressed to your satisfaction, and I'll go over it for you.

I think your problem, Jazz, is that the arguments have demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that you don't know what you're talking about.

Case in point: your claim that there was no major fire in the towers.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz, the only figure you have ever produced regarding core capacity is 600%. You have been wholly unable to provide a source or calculation for this. The only thing you have are general comments about redundancy.

In contrast, I refer you to the figures I gave above. If you can find a mistake in them, I'll be glad to hear it.

Your simply not presenting a competent argument. If you think that hand waving and generalities are sufficient to hang your claims on, then you have another thing coming. You haven't even been able to proeprly respond to my calculations regarding the weight of the tower, for heaven's sake!

Indeed, need I remind you that your one attempt to provide a source resulted in a paper that debunked your own theories about the fire?

In short: put up, or shut up. Respond to the technical points put to you, in a detailed manner, or admit defeat.

oh stop your shit. The 600% was a perfectly reasonable ballpark figure as a demonstration that the core would more than stand up for itself. Crispy hasn't argued with the principle but has conceded the point instead. You would do so too if you weren't so objectionable.

 

[TheArchitect]

oh stop your shit. The 600% was a perfectly reasonable ballpark figure as a demonstration that the core would more than stand up for itself. Crispy hasn't argued with the principle but has conceded the point instead. You would do so too if you weren't so objectionable.

How do you know it is a reasonable ballpark figure?

 

[Jazzz]

I think your problem, Jazz, is that the arguments have demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that you don't know what you're talking about.

Case in point: your claim that there was no major fire in the towers.

Ha! So you think editor needs your help in choosing an argument of yours which he thinks I've haven't properly addressed!

 

[TheArchitect]

Ha! So you think editor needs your help in choosing an argument of yours which he thinks I've haven't properly addressed!

I'm sure he'll tell me if I'm wrong.

How do you know 600% was a reasonable ballpark figure, Jazz? And what was your source?

 

[Balbi]

Ha! So you think editor needs your help in choosing an argument of yours which he thinks I've haven't properly addressed!

Jazzz, he thinks you're a confuddled twunt. He's being kind.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazzz, he thinks you're a confuddled twunt. He's being kind.

This always happens when they get backed into corners because of unfair tricks such as "facts" and "evidence". It's quite impressive in court, or in a public inquiry, watching them lose it completely.

 

[editor]

The 600% was a perfectly reasonable ballpark figure ....

Based on what, precisely?

You have no qualifications or experience in designing and building skyscrapers whatsoever, so what are you basing this on?

 

[TheArchitect]

Based on what, precisely?

You have no qualifications or experience in designing and building skyscrapers whatsoever, so what are you basing this on?

In science and engineering, all we deal with are facts and figures. This usually catches out the CT lobby, who prefer speculation and spurious correllation.

 

[Crispy]

oh stop your shit. The 600% was a perfectly reasonable ballpark figure as a demonstration that the core would more than stand up for itself. Crispy hasn't argued with the principle but has conceded the point instead. You would do so too if you weren't so objectionable.

But it turned out the real figures were in the range of 126% to 192%, depending on which part of the building under consideration. So your ballpark figure is actually 2 to 4.7 times as large as the actual figure. All I was conceding was the possibility that the core, as an isolated stanalone structure, might be self-supporting. But it was not isolated, it was part of a system of other parts. And as soon as collapse was initiated, the forces involved were far far more than were designed to be resisted.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm sure he'll tell me if I'm wrong.

How do you know 600% was a reasonable ballpark figure, Jazz? And what was your source?

Thomas Eagar referred to the World Trade Centre as a fantastically redundant structure, and he's seems to be quoted as an authority on it. 600% sounds perfectly reasonable to me for a structure which had to play safe, in fact 'fantastically redundant' would to me imply figures maybe greater than six times.

 

[Jazzz]

But it turned out the real figures were in the range of 126% to 192%, depending on which part of the building under consideration. So your ballpark figure is actually 2 to 4.7 times as large as the actual figure. All I was conceding was the possibility that the core, as an isolated stanalone structure, might be self-supporting. But it was not isolated, it was part of a system of other parts. And as soon as collapse was initiated, the forces involved were far far more than were designed to be resisted.

Sorry where did those figures come from?

 

[editor]

Sorry where did those figures come from?

I do believe you were asked a question first by The Architect, so have some manners and please don't start wriggling again.

 

[Crispy]

Sorry where did those figures come from?

here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5545271&postcount=862
and from there, from the NIST report, from the engineers of the building.

fantastically = 2x adequately, but is less than incredibly, and less than astoundingly, but by a greater amount. That amount = a smidgen. I believe those are the professional terms.

 

[editor]

Thomas Eagar referred to the World Trade Centre as a fantastically redundant structure, and he's seems to be quoted as an authority on it. 600% sounds perfectly reasonable to me for a structure which had to play safe, in fact 'fantastically redundant' would to me imply figures maybe greater than six times.

Ah. So you made it up, yes?

 

[Jazzz]

here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5545271&postcount=862
and from there, from the NIST report, from the engineers of the building.

fantastically = 2x adequately, but is less than incredibly, and less than astoundingly, but by a greater amount. That amount = a smidgen. I believe those are the professional terms.

Ah, I missed that post, you'll have to excuse me but I have found TA's offerings a lot to plough through.

Could you translate this bit for me?

• 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.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Thomas Eagar referred to the World Trade Centre as a fantastically redundant structure, and he's seems to be quoted as an authority on it. 600% sounds perfectly reasonable to me for a structure which had to play safe, in fact 'fantastically redundant' would to me imply figures maybe greater than six times.

So the source for the 600% figure was, errrrr, your unqualified imagination?


Fucks sake, do you never learn?

Still waiting for an answer re the missiles from the planes

 

[Balbi]

Jazzz, i'm horrifically unqualified on this issue.

But if the yield strength is met, then the other components take a proportion of the load?

But, when the building's just been hit by an airliner, I doubt that the other components are within 'elastic range'. Mainly due to them being on fucking fire and being hit by an airliner ?

 

[Crispy]

Yes, it can be hard reading. We're dealing with a whole barrow load of facts here, after all.

I don't know if you've ever seen steel under a tension test in a lab (I had to do such a test as part of my degree) - The behaviour is not quite as intuitive as you might think. Steel can take a certain amount of load without serious deformation or change in its load bearing capacity. Once you remove the load, the steel retains its former shape. This is elastic behaviour. Beyond a certain point - and it is very obvious on a graph - the steel continues to be able to absorb extra load, but at the expense of deformation. This is plastic behaviour. Once you're into plastic behaviour, deformation continues to happen until the member eventually fails.

So, the translation of that statement would be something like:

Once the steel was loaded so much it was no longer "springy" - it was still capable of transmitting loads to still-springy elements whilst it was deforming.

 

[Jazzz]

oh Balbi! this could go on all year. The topic is something of a side issue not a direct claim that collapse couldn't have initiated from the factors you mention. If I understand you correctly.

 

[Balbi]

I think that with the official reports, and the engineering information given - just because the collapse of the towers didn't conform to the letter of the theories is because no-one had crashed a fully packed jet liner into one of the worlds tallest buildings in order to see what would happen. Therefore these gaps in consistency between theory and reality which form the basis of many CT arguments can be closed by pointing out that a big plane hitting an even bigger building might produce unique circumstance allowing for theoretical inconsistency

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

this could go on all year.

And until you learn what a credible source is, or accept that there are people in the world who are somewhat more qualified than you, it probably will.


So, missiles form planes, do you still consider this part of the reason the towers collapsed, or is CD your sole theory now? I've asked nicely

 

[TheArchitect]

Thomas Eagar referred to the World Trade Centre as a fantastically redundant structure, and he's seems to be quoted as an authority on it. 600% sounds perfectly reasonable to me for a structure which had to play safe, in fact 'fantastically redundant' would to me imply figures maybe greater than six times.

So in fact you had no source for the 600%, which was plucked out of the air. And on this you based your fantastic assertion that the core should have stood. Do you really call that analysis or understanding? Don't you consider your continuing failure to give a source to be intellectually dishonest?

Ah, I missed that post, you'll have to excuse me but I have found TA's offerings a lot to plough through.

Jazz, a cornerstone of your argument has been the self supporting nature of the core and yet you missed a massivley detailed post in which I set out yield values and similar data?

The topic is something of a side issue not a direct claim that collapse couldn't have initiated from the factors you mention. If I understand you correctly.

But Jazz, every single piece of "evidence" you have thus far produced for demolition has been debunked (at least once by yourself, as it happens); intensity of fires, free fall speeds, loadbearing capacity of the core. The only reason we haven't added horizontal ejection of debris and pyroclastic flows (haha) is that you've not actually responded to them yet!

On this basis, what do you think are the main points which "prove" controlled demolition then? We'll deal with them as systematically as we've dealt with the others (hint: a bit more than George Bush = Bad Man will be required).

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Sorry, Jazzz makes up yet another fact and then walks away from it, all the while attacking the debating style of someone who can provide sources for his numbers and ignoring the links provided.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz is good at walking away from facts.