Jazz
I'm finding it highly amusing that you don't seem to address me directly any more. Presumably you're still throwing a hissy fit because your "facts" and "evidence" turned out to be as substantial as political promises?
Once again you hand-wave away highly detailed technical arguments and prove woefully inadequate in posting full references for what little you have. Really, I can go back through all the posts and remind you AGAIN where you have "overlooked" evidence and calculations presented to you.
Alternatively, you could just post a cogent argument for a change.
I didn't claim 600% as gospel.
Actually, you stated it as fact and made no reference to any restrictions. In fact it now appears that you plucked 600% out of the air, which doesn't give us much confidence in your reasoning abilities. Are there any other figures which you also made up?
2.1 * 50% (TA's own figure) is more than 100%, if my arithmetic is correct this time. Hence TA's repeated claim that the core couldn't take the full design load of the WTC is surely wrong. And that's without reserve capacity of the steels past their yield point, or redistribution of load to the core via the hat trusses, or whatever.
Now tell us how you calculate this safety factor in respect of live, dead, and dynamic loads. Pay special attention to load directions and the role played by the floors and hat trusses in providing latteral restraint together with cross bracing.
And before you say you can't, I'd like to remind you that you claimed to be good at mechanics. I can quote the post if you like.
But finally we get to the nub of the argument: you finally specify your problems with the official reports - and there are only two of them!!
But this is all indeed a sideline - the main objections to the NIST reports are that
1) it never considered CD as an option. The above article phrases it nicely - the WTC was a crime scene, and tests should have been performed without bias, if only to rule options out.
That is because there is no evidence to justify such an assessment of the evidence. Planes hit the towers. Big fires broke out. Steel failed. Building collapsed. And funnily enough, YOU and all the other CTers haven't managed to come out with a shred of evidence of CD either.
What else did you expect NIST to check for? Judy Wood's mysterious death rays? Evidence of alien involvement? Earthquake damage? Dry rot?
It doesn't explain the actually collapse - this is the bit that most needs explaining. TA waves his hands and says that once collapse started 'progressive collapse was clearly inevitable' or similar but this is totally unproven. If it is so clear, why could it not be modelled? It is far from clear that complete collapse would occur from initial failures, and even if it was to, far from clear that it would progress in the way it did - no steel building has ever collapsed in such a way before, not from fire, not from earthquakes, not anything. But, they have from CD.
Incredible. You've not actually taken in
any of what you've been told. You're clearly not interest in the truth.
let me remind you that accordingly to figures which in an article/presentation YOU found that the dynamic load of the upper structure exceeded the capacity of the lower structure by a factor of 64.
That's 64, Jazz. From a paper which you quoted.
Let's also remember that you thought collapse speeds were around free-fall, rather than 30 to 60% slower and despite the fact that we could SEE huge chunks of debris actually in free-fall hit the ground first.
Any suggestion that the structure should have arrested is ludicrous and merely betrays the limitations in your own reasoning. However lest you accuse me of hand waving, I'd be more than happy to see your own calculations or alternatively your own detailed critique of Frank Greening's paper.
And I don't mean the woowoo crap Jones and co. post, because 911 myths and others have already trashed that.
On you go: are you a man, or an intellectual mouse?
What sloppy investigations.
