9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Jazzz said:I ignored that crap the first time - do stop flooding the thread.
You cheeky fucker. Asking someone else to stop repeating themselves!
TheArchitect said: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:
...
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!
None of this waffle disputes the point I made - that NIST were not able to produce a single piece of steel which they could confirm through testing was significantly weakened by high fire temperatures.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Jazzz said:
Whether it could take the gravity load is a moot point for 3 reasons:
1. It was damaged by impact and fire, so was not as strong as it was designed to be.
2. It had to take bending loads that it was not designed to take, as soon as the facade was damaged and the transmitted loads thus became assymetrical
amd most importantly
3. Once the top section had started to fall, the dynamic forces were 64 times more than the designed capacity.
TheArchitect
New Member
Jazzz said:
But Jazz, you're not correct.
Don't you worry, a technical rebuttal is on the way....but before that, do you want to add anything to your technical case (you know, like calculations or technical explanations) or are you 100% happy with it as it stands?
TheArchitect
New Member
Still waiting, jazz:
TheArchitect
New Member
Jazzz said:I ignored that crap the first time - do stop flooding the thread.
Well, it was good advice. Nice to see you treat it the same way as you treat analysis and evidence though....
That sounds like a persecution complex you've got there ...Jazzz said:
but, in your case, it's more likely to be a persecution simple, to be honest ...
This thread is now becoming cringeworthy. You are an embarrassment, Jazz, I regret to have to say.
hypocrite
TheArchitect
New Member
Noname,
The trouble is that I now know that you're just trying to start a fight for the sake of it.........hve you considered the politics thread over at JREF? A perfect home and a few Americans who could do with a piece of your mind.
The trouble is that I now know that you're just trying to start a fight for the sake of it.........hve you considered the politics thread over at JREF? A perfect home and a few Americans who could do with a piece of your mind.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
No. You. Didn't.Jazzz said:
TheArchitect
New Member
Jazz in trouble again.....
Well Jazz, let's remember how you kicked this all off:
Of course it turned out that 600% had been plucked out of the air, and you've since started using 100% instead. It's a funny old game, eh?
Your working hypothesis is 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 because of the safety factors.
One of the first things we have to understand is what we mean by safety factor: the ratio of the breaking stress of a structure to the estimated maximum stress in ordinary use.
However it is important to understand that the loads/forces found on a complex structure such as WTC may be acting in any number of ways; for example horizontal bending or overturning moments, or gravity loads.
In the same vein, there is a difference between the safety factor of an individual part of a structure andthe structure as a whole. It is perfectly possible for a steel beam to have a high factor of safety against (say) buckling under vertical (gravity) loads but a different figure for other forces.
To claim a figure of 600%, or 200%, or 50% as a global safety factor therefore just betrays how little you understand the subject. 600% against what? Which kind of forces? How are they acting? We can therefore only really understand the performance of the structure through global modelling.
Unlike Jazz, NIST actually do this - and not once, but three times. They look at the original design calculations, modern design calculations, and then a more forgiving global model of their own. The latter tells us that:
- Core columns in WTC typically had a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 0.83 with around 10.6% of components exceeding design capacity under normal conditions.
- Hat Truss Columns had a typical DCR of 0.59, with 14.3% exceeding design capacity (some by DCRs of up to 1.95).
Other elements of the trusses had lower DCRs, however a truss is only as strong as the weakest member so we can set these to one side.
Now the section you quote Jazz, from page 133 of the PDF file, doesn't model the structural performance or indeed individual components. It's actually just a note of the NYC and Port authority design codes. So they don't actually prove anything very much.
So where does this take us:
Well, Hat Trusses may have had up to 0.4 "spare DCR" however this is in respect of design loads. The purpose of the hatt trusses was not to cantilever loads from envelope to carr, but even if it was then it certainly wasn't capable of taking double the design load.
But even if it had been, the INTACT core only had some 0.17 "spare" DCR. that's only about 20%, and we need to bear in mind that some of the core structure already exceeded calculated capacity.
Now Jazz, you then CONTINUE to overlook some fundamental issues here:
1. We know that about a third of the core columns in each building were badly damaged or completely severed, further reducing the ability of the core to accept any loads.
2. Further damage would have occured to core structures during the collapse from both debris impacts and from dislodgement/failure at floor connections.
3. Despite this, we also know that some of the lower cores stood for 15 to 20 seconds following the main collapse.
So, in summary:
- Your 600% claim for structural safety factor of the core is rubbish
- Your reworked figure of 200% is rubbish
- Your claim that the hat trusses had sufficient spare capacity is rubbish
- Your claim that the core should have held the loads is rubbish.
I shall await your doubtless inaccurate response with interest.
Well Jazz, let's remember how you kicked this all off:
Jazzz said:
Of course it turned out that 600% had been plucked out of the air, and you've since started using 100% instead. It's a funny old game, eh?
Your working hypothesis is 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 because of the safety factors.
One of the first things we have to understand is what we mean by safety factor: the ratio of the breaking stress of a structure to the estimated maximum stress in ordinary use.
However it is important to understand that the loads/forces found on a complex structure such as WTC may be acting in any number of ways; for example horizontal bending or overturning moments, or gravity loads.
In the same vein, there is a difference between the safety factor of an individual part of a structure andthe structure as a whole. It is perfectly possible for a steel beam to have a high factor of safety against (say) buckling under vertical (gravity) loads but a different figure for other forces.
To claim a figure of 600%, or 200%, or 50% as a global safety factor therefore just betrays how little you understand the subject. 600% against what? Which kind of forces? How are they acting? We can therefore only really understand the performance of the structure through global modelling.
Unlike Jazz, NIST actually do this - and not once, but three times. They look at the original design calculations, modern design calculations, and then a more forgiving global model of their own. The latter tells us that:
- Core columns in WTC typically had a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 0.83 with around 10.6% of components exceeding design capacity under normal conditions.
- Hat Truss Columns had a typical DCR of 0.59, with 14.3% exceeding design capacity (some by DCRs of up to 1.95).
Other elements of the trusses had lower DCRs, however a truss is only as strong as the weakest member so we can set these to one side.
Now the section you quote Jazz, from page 133 of the PDF file, doesn't model the structural performance or indeed individual components. It's actually just a note of the NYC and Port authority design codes. So they don't actually prove anything very much.
So where does this take us:
Well, Hat Trusses may have had up to 0.4 "spare DCR" however this is in respect of design loads. The purpose of the hatt trusses was not to cantilever loads from envelope to carr, but even if it was then it certainly wasn't capable of taking double the design load.
But even if it had been, the INTACT core only had some 0.17 "spare" DCR. that's only about 20%, and we need to bear in mind that some of the core structure already exceeded calculated capacity.
Now Jazz, you then CONTINUE to overlook some fundamental issues here:
1. We know that about a third of the core columns in each building were badly damaged or completely severed, further reducing the ability of the core to accept any loads.
2. Further damage would have occured to core structures during the collapse from both debris impacts and from dislodgement/failure at floor connections.
3. Despite this, we also know that some of the lower cores stood for 15 to 20 seconds following the main collapse.
So, in summary:
- Your 600% claim for structural safety factor of the core is rubbish
- Your reworked figure of 200% is rubbish
- Your claim that the hat trusses had sufficient spare capacity is rubbish
- Your claim that the core should have held the loads is rubbish.
I shall await your doubtless inaccurate response with interest.
Crispy said:
I have been attacked for making the assertions that 1) the core could stand up for itself 2) it could take the full gravity load of the building.
Both of which it could easily do so as has been proved.
It's all very well to say that the 'point is moot' now but I didn't hear you saying that earlier when TA was viciously attacking me for making such outrageous statements.
I'm sorry to have to point out to TA that he was quite wrong, and indeed you were too Crispy, and also the architects you showed the core to in your lunch break!
In fact I think it forms a rather good test of which side of the debate has a feel for the structure, and which is trying to rationalise a bizarre collapse.
I could easily say that the whole NIST report is 'moot' - as it fails to explain the collapse at all. All it does it provide a model (rather fudged, it would seem) to provide a collapse of something.
Perhaps you would like to explain what initiated collapse at the core?
None of this waffle counters my proof that the core was designed could take the entire gravity load of the building, when you said otherwise. You were wrong!TheArchitect said:
I'm pissed off at your continued misrepresentations. I'm not saying that the hat truss is crucial to the collapse.TheArchitect said:
YOU were insisting that the perimeter had to take 50% of the load. I simply offered the hat truss as a means by which load could be redistributed, to point out that you were mistaken, which you were. I could also point out that a significant percentage of the load would be within the footprint of the core itself. As ever you seek to twist everything I say. Are you doing this deliberately? Damn poor show whatever.
William Rodriguez speaking tour
To get back perhaps more to the title of the thread - media happenings - William Rodriguez, the last civilian to escape the WTC towers and a hero credited with saving many lives that day is doing a speaking tour of the UK. He's in London on February 6th.
Tour schedule here
He selflessly refused instructions to leave the towers five times on 9/11 and equally selflessly he's turned his back on an very easy political life courtesy of the USG for the chance to honestly tell his story about what happened that day.
about William Rodriguez
To get back perhaps more to the title of the thread - media happenings - William Rodriguez, the last civilian to escape the WTC towers and a hero credited with saving many lives that day is doing a speaking tour of the UK. He's in London on February 6th.
Tour schedule here
He selflessly refused instructions to leave the towers five times on 9/11 and equally selflessly he's turned his back on an very easy political life courtesy of the USG for the chance to honestly tell his story about what happened that day.
about William Rodriguez
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I wonder how he'll be able to make any money now. I wonder.
What do you mean by that?goldenecitrone said:I wonder how he'll be able to make any money now. I wonder.
If you're implying that he somehow is in it 'for the money' you couldn't be more wrong - he was being very well feted by the Bush regime before he started insisting on telling his story properly. When he did that he was on his own. This guy is a real hero goldencitrone. That means he put the lives of others well in advance of his own on 9/11. I don't think his integrity can be questioned.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
EVERYONE'S integrity can be questioned Jazzz - just because the guy rescued people from the WTC does not autmatically make him some kind of saint in the rest of his life, it makes him someone who behaved altruistically in an exceptional situation.
editor
hiraethified
Just because he acted bravely on that day, that doesn't make his ill-informed, evidence-free, fruitloop opinions about invisible explosives worth any more than, say, Jazz's near-insane ramblings on 9/11.
Still, it's good to see him getting the fame and recognition he always wanted now, even if he is being thoroughly exploited by the Loon Lobby.
Still, it's good to see him getting the fame and recognition he always wanted now, even if he is being thoroughly exploited by the Loon Lobby.
What crap - he had 'fame' when Bush kept pinning medals on him (five times IIRC)editor said:
yet, he chucked that all away. Ptcha.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Dear god, has he said anything new since this thread started? Hell, i wasted 20 minutes listening to him talk shite at the beginning of the thread to discover that there was nothing new or interesting there.
You're really boring me now Jazzz.
You're really boring me now Jazzz.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
And now you're going to sulk?Jazzz said:ah... the failsafe way to discredit anything... 'there's nothing new here'.
The feeling's mutual BTL, although I was, in fairness of proper discussion going to tell you about the reply I received from NIST about steel conduction.
You're amazing Jazzz, first you're too lazy to check the NIST report for steel conduction information while claiming it doesn't exist at the same time. Now you make the effort to email them enquiring about it?
Are you sure you haven't made this reply up too?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
