9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

1. Actually Jazz, there are no reports of explosives. There are people claiming they heard explosions - we dealt with that in an earlier post - but no-one saying they saw explosives. If you know different, then do give us a link.

If you don't know the difference, then you have a greater problem than anticipate.d

I meant to say explosions. I think you know perfectly well what I meant. But hey, why not take the chance to chant childishly?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Quote corrected

God I am so pissed off with you lot I am going to wait before addressing the current round of fact-slinging

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So in summary, they looked at 170 pieces of steel but only found three pieces that had hit 250 C. And they aren't saying that those three pieces got much hotter than that. They explain away the problem by saying that they didn't test enough steel, well perhaps that was because most of it was quickly chucked away. And TA wonders why Fire Engineering said that the investigation was a 'half-baked farce'!

No you ignorant prat, a thousand and one parts tested could have hit 250*C, only three that they tested were OVER 250*C.

I can't find where exactly you got that quote from, it's 180+ pages after all and you don't include a reference, but that you chopped out a section is rather telling.

But no, you have it folks, because the USG was not willing to waste tens of millions of dollars moving, cataloging, storing, testing and attempting to piece together the largest jigsaw in the world, they must have done it.

 

[Jazzz]

No you ignorant prat, a thousand and one parts tested could have hit 250*C, only three that they tested were OVER 250*C.

I can't find where exactly you got that quote from, it's 180+ pages after all and you don't include a reference, but that you chopped out a section is rather telling.

But no, you have it folks, because the USG was not willing to waste tens of millions of dollars moving, cataloging, storing, testing and attempting to piece together the largest jigsaw in the world, they must have done it.

I did include the reference, what on earth are you on about?

e2a - 'xli' is page 43 of 184 on the pdf.

When you check the page you'll see that I omitted nothing of import. I just gave my typing fingers a rest as I couldn't cut & paste it. Really, a hanging offence.

My statements were perfectly fair. They haven't confirmed through testing that any of the steel reached a temperature where it would have significantly weakened. Sorry but that's the truth, however you want to spin it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Ok, how's this truth for you:

There is not an iota of evidence that shows explosives were used.

 

[Dubversion]

christ, is this shit still going?

i don't know how you all have the energy and patience to keep arguing with jazz

 

[TheArchitect]

christ, is this shit still going?

i don't know how you all have the energy and patience to keep arguing with jazz

Illness from work, not much else to do, keeps the mind sharp.

 

[Dubversion]

fair play then.

i salute (what is it?) your indefatigibility...

 

[TheArchitect]

It was a letter to Frank Gayle of NIST. In his official capacity. What you are referring to is a 'leak'.

Jazz,

You should know that I've actually read Ryan's appeal papers and the rubuttals. DO you really want an arse kicking on this one too?

 

[TheArchitect]

fair play then.

i salute (what is it?) your indefatigibility...

Where's Rula Lenska got to then?

 

[Jazzz]

<post edited>

 

[8den]

<post edited>

God Jazzz watching this is like watching a poorly trained boxer getting a pounding. You just want to watch the bout end after it's beyond victory and roams into masscre territory.

 

[Jazzz]

oh look! jazzz proved right

Well I guess what keeps me going 8den is the knowledge that my assertions are basically sound, and as Ghandi noted the truth is always the truth, even if only one person is speaking it.

TheArchitect (and to a lesser extent, Crispy) have both poured utter scorn on my claim that the core could 1) hold itself up 2) support the weight of the entire WTC

Crispy appears to have conceded the first point, although I'm not entirely sure, he promised to reply to my proof of it in post #745. He certainly should do - it's simply inconceivable that the WTC could have been built on a flimsy core.

Here's what I found recently while perusing the NIST report pertaining to the design specification - a description of the NYC 1968 Building code:

5.2 Structural Design Requirements

...In regard to strength requirements, the member or assembly must be capable of supporting the following...

1. Without visible damage (other than hairline cracks) its own weight plus a test load equal to 150 percent of the design live load plus 150 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site, and

2. Without collapse its own weight plus a test load equal to 50 percent of its own weight plus 250 percent of the design live load plus 250 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05119.pdf
(page 133 of the pdf).

From another NIST report:

Because of The Port Authority's establishment under a clause of the United States Constitution, its buildings were not subject to any external building code. The buildings were unlike any others previously built, both in their height and in their innovative structural features. Nevertheless, the actual design and approval process produced two buildings that generally were consistent with nearly all of the provisions of the New York City Building Code and other building codes of that time. The loads for which the buildings were designed exceeded the code requirements.

taken from here

So no doubt I will be called crazy but if the core, which would be expected to take at least 50% of the building's gravity loads in normal operation, was designed to exceed the requirement of taking half its own weight plus 250 percent of both the design live and dead loads, then that means it could take the entire load of the building. And I would venture hold itself up too.

 

[Aldebaran]

Jazz, you might read my comment about the decision *not* to build the towers following the original plans.

salaam.

 

[tarannau]

God Jazzz watching this is like watching a poorly trained boxer getting a pounding. You just want to watch the bout end after it's beyond victory and roams into masscre territory.

I know. Admittedly I was thinking of Jazzz in a slightly different way.

C'mon then. You architects and the designer of the WTC haven't got anything to match my knowledge. Your arguments, logic and experience cannot defeat my self-taught expertise. I came second in my school's physics olympiad for chrisstakes. You cannot defeat me. It's only a flesh wound...

A special martyr star to Jazzz for comparing himself to Gandhi yet again though - it's a tough world when you're so delusional....

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So no doubt I will be called crazy but if the core, which would be expected to take at least 50% of the building's gravity loads in normal operation, was designed to exceed the requirement of taking half its own weight plus 250 percent of both the design live and dead loads, then that means it could take the entire load of the building. And I would venture hold itself up too.

No, you'll be called a fucking idiot again.

Jazzz, you're a fucking idiot.

That is an extract of the section on steel members, not the core itself. If you are really so stupid as to be unable to tell the difference i recomend suicide, while you're waiting for that i'll try to explain in little words.

The core is not mentioned, those figures are for the steel beams alone. That means the 50% extra own weight is effectively negigable compared to the mass of the towers (falling to boot!), and leaves you with around a 300% redundancy factor at most.

Either way, your 600% factor was shite. Stop trying to dig yourself out of your prisonplanet induced hole. Trying to twist documents to support your own delusions must be getting boring by now.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Surely this barrel is out of fish by now?

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz Gets Caught.....AGAIN!

Jazz,

In support of your claims that (a) the fires weren't all that hot and (the investigation was botched, you post a link to the NIST report and say:

So in summary, they looked at 170 pieces of steel but only found three pieces that had hit 250 C. And they aren't saying that those three pieces got much hotter than that. They explain away the problem by saying that they didn't test enough steel, well perhaps that was because most of it was quickly chucked away. And TA wonders why Fire Engineering said that the investigation was a 'half-baked farce'!

Now we've learnt that caution is required whenever you provide a source - incidentally, still waiting for some backup on your made up 600% safety margin - but this was another unexpected corker. You've gone and debunked yourself again!

The summary section actually says:

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 of the recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to the collapse of WTC1. None of the nine recovered panels from WTC2 were observed to have been directly exposed to pre-collapse fires.

NIST developed a method the characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of praint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temerature reached and it cannot distinguish between pre- and post collapse exposre. More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter column panles; however these columns represented only three percent on the perimeter columns on the floors involved in the fire and cannot be considered representative of the of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C. These areas:

- WTC1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web
- WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web
- WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector.

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.

<snip>

Similar results, i.e. limited exposure if any above 250C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire affected floors of the towers, which had adequate paint for analysis. Note that the core columns were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.

So where do you go wrong (as ever) Jazz? Well we have to actually read (or re-read) the body of the report.

1. Firstly, for all of your previous claims that there wasn't proper testing of the steel we know that NIST managed to recover, examine, and test steelwork. For example page 41 of the document (89 onwards of the pdf) actually discusses the analysis of the data.

Unfortunately Jazz doesn't seem to have got this far - this is the section with all the photgraphs which prove his "no fire" theory to be wrong.

Document page 73 onwards also shows pictures of the recovered steel that Jazz likes to claim was never examined before being whisked away.

Page 99 talks about the separate materials study commissioned by NIST by way of a second opinion, appended to the main report, which concurred with all the NIST study on all but a few minor points.

Page 111 onwards confirms that the WTC steel was subjected to fire testing as part of the investigation and performed exactly as expected.

2. Secondly, although your post seems to suggest that NIST are talking about core steelwork, we know that the principal results are for the perimeter - there only being 2 core columns recovered from the area of the fires. Given that the external columns were at the perimeter of the fire it WOULD be suprising if temperatures hit high levels.

3. Page 173 onwards debunks your theory about conductivity wicking heat away quickly along the steelwork, posting the data necessary to confirm that it doesn't magically disperse itself away from the heat source.

At the end of the day Jazz, the building failed because the floor trusses went. Posting information about the inner (fire protected) columns and the outer (hence remote from the seat of the fire) envelope is a terrible and patently obvious effort to misdirect attention and misrepresent the NIST paper.

Sheesh, even you have to see that if NIST were involved in a big cover up they'd be pretty damned stupid to actually give the game away in their own report!

 

[TheArchitect]

A timely reminder

Jazz,

One of the many posts you ran away from....

Jazz,

There are three reasons the posts are long winded:

1. Because the issues we're dealing with are complex, and you seem to have some....misconceptions....about structural engineering, building design, fire safety, and so on. All I did was reduce them to simple terms that you could understand if you were genuinely interested.

2. Because many of your arguments (say the amazing "made up" 600% safety factor, or the mass of the buildings) could only be disproven by reference to technical documents, or by calculations.

3. You attempt to wriggle out of difficult points by denying what you said, or misquoting articles, or (more often) changing topic and the only way to bring you back on topic is to actually remind you on what really happened.

Case in point:

- The challenge for you to tell us properly what you think happened.

- The ejection of horizontal debris

- Damage to the core prior to collapse

Still waiting for your reply on these. Whenever you fancy more of your theories being utterly debunked.

 

[TheArchitect]

Another one Jazz never answered

Jazz

You were asked an extensive list of questions and challenged to provide a detailed response; do not cherry pick.

However in view of your response, I would like to add two questions.

- How long do you believe it took to clear the site?

- How long did the FEMA and NIST investigations take?

Still waiting, Jazz

 

[TheArchitect]

And the Biggie that Jazz ignored

Still waiting, Jazz

Jazz

Since you like to claim that we - and in particular yours truly - misrepresent you when we debunk...sorry, respond to...your theories, I have a challenge for you.

Present us your theory about what hapennd on 9/11.

This includes at least:

- What flew into the towers.

- Why did they fall

- In case of controlled demolition: please show how the buildings where prepped, how it was possible to do that within the time limits, why nobody saw the prepped walls, how the dynamite and the wires survived the planes' impacts and why no traces of dynamite were found afterwards.

- Please explain why such a destruction would work without the slightest problems even though there has never been any building brought down that was even nearly as large as the towers, everything was done in a rush and therefore had to been done very sloppy, and even though everything went perfect.

- What flew into Pentagon

- Does that match with the eyewitnesses observations?

- What was the purpose of the attack?

- Who is involved into the conspiracy?

- How have the engineering communities across the globe been silenced?

- What do you think happened to WTC7?

This just to start with.

Please explain in detail and with your own words. No links to CT sites accepted. Any articles, etc. will be checked in order to ensure quotes are accurate. Any calculations will be checked. Unsupported speculation will be ignored.

Are you up to the challenge?

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Still waiting, Jazz

Don't waste your time on this blinkered little creep.

 

[TheArchitect]

Don't waste your time on this blinkered little creep.

Given that he made up a safety factor for the tower, can we add "delusional" to that?

 

[Jazzz]

No, you'll be called a fucking idiot again.

Jazzz, you're a fucking idiot.

That is an extract of the section on steel members, not the core itself. If you are really so stupid as to be unable to tell the difference i recomend suicide, while you're waiting for that i'll try to explain in little words.

The core is not mentioned, those figures are for the steel beams alone. That means the 50% extra own weight is effectively negigable compared to the mass of the towers (falling to boot!), and leaves you with around a 300% redundancy factor at most.

Either way, your 600% factor was shite. Stop trying to dig yourself out of your prisonplanet induced hole. Trying to twist documents to support your own delusions must be getting boring by now.

BTL

The point was to prove that the core could take the entire gravity load of the building. TA had said it couldn't.

I have proved it could: that was the point under dispute. Notice how TA has completely ignored the post. As has Crispy.

As an aside, the 50% refers to 'assemblies' as well as individual steel beams. But I neither need that, nor 600% for the proof (incidentally, 600% could still be correct for all I know - the yield points for the steel do not tell us the redundacy built into the design loads of the structures).

 

[Bob_the_lost]

BTL

The point was to prove that the core could take the entire gravity load of the building. TA had said it couldn't.

I have proved it could: that was the point under dispute. Notice how TA has completely ignored the post. As has Crispy.

As an aside, the 50% refers to 'assemblies' as well as individual steel beams. But I neither need that, nor 600% for the proof (incidentally, 600% could still be correct for all I know - the yield points for the steel do not tell us the redundacy built into the design loads of the structures).

You haven't proved anything like that. You have shown us a document, one that you ridicule, where it states that the specifications say it should have been able to take a very large load. Biiiiig difference compared to TA's numbers that were taken from a later stage of the design process.

You miss the point of the 600%, it's cast iron proof that you make stuff up. You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to you when you completely ignore crucial factors.

 

[TheArchitect]

I can see I'm going to have disprove Jazz on core design and safety factors.

In the interim, Jazz, are you going to respond to any of the many, many points you've run away from?

 

[TheArchitect]

A reminder for Jazz

Jazz

I had hoped you might have listened to this advice. I fear I was wrong. Nevertheless I will repeat it, just in case.

Jazz,

I was hoping that by now you might have begun to read my posts, think about what really happened on 9/11, and appraise the evidence before you in a more informed and level manner. It appears that I was optimistic.

The accepted scientific or engineering position is that when I am presented with an argument on a vital subject, this argument must reach certain standards of validity. This must be verifiable through calculation, our understanding of existing systems, and evidence.

Your explanations in support of your theories are no more than a description of what you believe happened, and anyone can do that. The evidence presented for a certain argument should be judged firstly by that evidence's ability to stand alone. For example can the argument, or hypothesis, be tested in any way. Such tests can include physical models, video evidence, historical precedent, and established scientific precedent.

In my opinion, your hypothesis has almost no independent verification. It is not supported by engineering models, basic structural issues, or our understanding of fire performance. It is not supported by credible evidence, and such evidence as you do present is clearly not based on a thorough review of available material.

Of greatest concern are the misquotes and unsubstantiated figures which you post. Whatever the provenance of such posts, how are those of us on this board to differentiate the information you give us from the information a person that might be willingly trying to deceive us, or at least willingly keep us in the dark might give?

Do you really think a good critical thinker should accept an explanation that is only a description of a belief of what happened to be fact? Do you not agree that it is incumbent upon us to investigate, understand, and analyse before reaching a conclusion? Do you believe that that a single source or a small group of unqualified activisits with little or no expertise in specialist should be believed before expert technical opinion?

In your posts you qualitative details whatsoever. There is no comment on the capacity of the structure to support load, and at what locations, in order to arrest or significantly support the collapse. You do not give any indication of how loads are to be magically transferred through the hat truss to the core. You do not post any calculations demonstrating the capacity of the core.

It is clear to me, and the others on this site, that you fail to grasp both the basic engineering principles and logical analysis required in order to understand the actual events which led to the collapse of WTC.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

jazzz, you keep saying that you have proved the core would stand up on its own.

No.

You.

Haven't.



Get this into your head and maybe this debate can move on.....

 

[Jazzz]

jazzz, you keep saying that you have proved the core would stand up on its own.

No.

You.

Haven't.



Get this into your head and maybe this debate can move on.....

Yes I have: post #745.

Not only that, but I have further shown that it could take the entire gravity load of the building (using the NIST report).

I think how the debate moves on is really not in my court. It comes down to whether others will stop attacking me for being correct.

 

[Jazzz]

You miss the point of the 600%, it's cast iron proof that you make stuff up. You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to you when you completely ignore crucial factors.

TA found it himself on a few pages. It doesn't matter - I never said I took as a gospel, it formed part of a rough argument to point out how bizarre it would be to suggest that the core couldn't stand up for itself, which it obviously could, and if you guys weren't in thrall to TA's waffling you'd realise that too. As it is, the 1968 NYC Building Code was quite good enough.