9/11 media happenings

[TheArchitect]

Crispy could you tell TA to stop C&Ping irrelevant technobabble and lists of questions I've likely previously addressed otherwise this painful thread could go on for ever? thanks.

Lets take a look at Jazz' claim that he in actual fact addressed our post showing him to be wrong:

Originally Posted by TheArchitect
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.

So just to be clear, this "technobabble" in NIST is detailed calculations showing that, even on the most favourable of structural models, the core safety factor was no more than 40% globally and less in areas.

And how did Jazz respond?

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!

That's right. No calculations. No detailed rebuttal. No technical discusison. Just the patently wrong assertion that it didn't disprove his case.

 

[TheArchitect]

Aye, that's Jazz to a T

 

[Jazzz]

Dear. God.

I already explained where you completely misrepresented me with that tedious crap. Post #1160.

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.

It was that bit, which is total crap - I've never made any reliance on the hat truss. I only mentioned it to disprove YOUR assertion that the core couldn't have more than 50% of the gravity load. Your whole essay on the limitations of the hat truss is a complete waste of everyone's time, and there is absolutely nothing in it to show that the core couldn't have the capacity to take the entire gravity load of the building, as I have proved in post #1123.

I don't appreciate having to repeat myself here. I resent the energy drain that dealing with you causes. Do shut up. I am doing my best not to engage with you.

 

[WouldBe]

I only mentioned it to disprove YOUR assertion that the core couldn't have more than 50% of the gravity load. Your whole essay on the limitations of the hat truss is a complete waste of everyone's time

Didn't think I was imagining that post by TA. Oops.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz: Liar

Let's look at what Jazz has really said about the core:

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.

I pointed out that hat trusses could take load from the outside shell to the core

I never said that outer envelope didn't carry a large proportion of the weight - I have simply maintained that the inner core was capable of taking all of it.

I never claimed that 600% was gospel. Just that it seemed a reasonable benchmark for a structure considered

The 600% was a perfectly reasonable ballpark figure as a demonstration that the core would more than stand up for itself.

TA's repeated claim that the core couldn't take the full design load of the WTC is surely wrong.

200% suffices for the argument I was making to disprove your assertion that the core could not take the full design load (which may reflect fantastic redundancy in itself)

What are you saying, that loads can't be transferred to the core via the hat truss

TA is a damn fool for thinking that the core wouldn't stand on its own (which I disproved in post #745).

Let's note you still seem to the think that the core couldn't stand on its own (utter baloney), nor have you confirmed whether you think it was impossible for the hat truss to redistribute loads from the perimeter to the core (they could).

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

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.

I have further shown that it could take the entire gravity load of the building (using the NIST report).

So just to be quite clear here. Jazz has claimed - consistently - that

(a) The core had sufficient design capacity to carry the entire gravity (i.e. dead) load of each tower. 500,000 tonnes by his own calculation.

(b) The hat trusses should have transferred the envelope loads to the core, thus (one assumes) preventing the collapse due to envelope failure.

(c) Has rubbished myself and Crispy for arguing.

But of course there's a problem with this.



Yup, you guessed it.



Jazz is talking bollocks.




The DCR figures - you'll all notice that Jazz doesn't disagree with then - actually indicate that at the very most the excess capacity was 40% and that a number of the columns in fact exceeded capacity pre collapse.

Jazz also wholly ignores the documented damage to around a third of the core columns. Which of course would have effectively countered any redundancy.


And then, magically forgetting all this, Jazz then claims:

It was that bit, which is total crap - I've never made any reliance on the hat truss. I only mentioned it to disprove YOUR assertion that the core couldn't have more than 50% of the gravity load. Your whole essay on the limitations of the hat truss is a complete waste of everyone's time, and there is absolutely nothing in it to show that the core couldn't have the capacity to take the entire gravity load of the building, as I have proved in post #1123.

So basically, Jazz has been proven wrong AND THEN denies ever having made the claim in the first place AND claims to have won the argument.

What an absolute joke. Jazz is incapable of understanding the actual issues needed to understand the collapse.

 

[TheArchitect]

Didn't think I was imagining that post by TA. Oops.

No, I pointed out to Jazz that the core took around 50% of the floor load and the outer envelope likewise.

Which is obvious when you remember that each holds up one end of the floor.

 

[TheArchitect]

Incidentally, Jazz, you also got caught lying again in post 1128 (about fire temperature test results) and never responded (surprise surprise)

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I believed what I was posting about the NIST report when I posted it - that was taken from other sites.

What "other sites"? I ask because this sounds like you still haven't worked out the difference between credible sources and bullshit spouting conspiraloons....

 

[TheArchitect]

What "other sites"? I ask because this sounds like you still haven't worked out the difference between credible sources and bullshit spouting conspiraloons....

When you don't see anything wrong with making up statistics such as "600%" in a technical discussion then you probably have no chance of understanding the difference between the two, I'm afraid.....

 

[editor]

Hi Jazzz
Could you tell me precisely how many floors you believe had been invisibly wired with invisible explosives please?

And could you list the floor numbers?

Thanks.

 

[Jazzz]

Let's look at what Jazz has really said about the core:

So just to be quite clear here. Jazz has claimed - consistently - that

(a) The core had sufficient design capacity to carry the entire gravity (i.e. dead) load of each tower. 500,000 tonnes by his own calculation.

(b) The hat trusses should have transferred the envelope loads to the core, thus (one assumes) preventing the collapse due to envelope failure.

(c) Has rubbished myself and Crispy for arguing.

But of course there's a problem with this.



Yup, you guessed it.

Jazz is talking bollocks.

The DCR figures - you'll all notice that Jazz doesn't disagree with then - actually indicate that at the very most the excess capacity was 40% and that a number of the columns in fact exceeded capacity pre collapse.



And then, magically forgetting all this, Jazz then claims:

So basically, Jazz has been proven wrong AND THEN denies ever having made the claim in the first place AND claims to have won the argument.

What an absolute joke. Jazz is incapable of understanding the actual issues needed to understand the collapse.

No, YOU ARE TALKING BOLLOCKS. Your point (b) is totally made up. You are right about (a) and (c) although with (a) I guess 500,000 tonnes refers to not simply the dead load but a fully loaded WTC. I didn't calculate it - it came from Thomas Eagar.

I fail to see how your waffle about DCR affects in any way my proof that the core could take the entire weight of the towers, fully loaded, which is extremely simple. The 1968 NYC building code specifies that steel members and assemblies had to be able to take 250% of its design load without collapse for a week. And the NIST reports says that the WTC was designed in excess of that code requirement where load bearing was concerned. That means that the core, taking your figure of 50% of operational loads, could take the entire load of the WTC. Really damn simple. And it really doesn't matter what technobabble you come out with, you are simply wrong and shown to be so.

Jazz also wholly ignores the documented damage to around a third of the core columns. Which of course would have effectively countered any redundancy.

When arguing that the core could stand up for itself and take the entire load of the WTC, I am simply proving assertions I made and countering your accusations that they are 'ludicrous'. Stop trying to make out that I am saying that they disprove official collapse theories. I am of course damn weary of having to correct you all of the time.

To be honest, I think you've been exposed as not having a clue TA, others might even be noticing it too, and you are floundering. Indeed BTL and Crispy have each done far better than you have. Of course, you can't admit that you were wrong, so you'll carry on misrepresenting every word I say, and repeatedly C&P stuff I've previously dealt with ad infinitum. How tedious.

 

[editor]

Hi Jazzz
Could you tell me precisely how many floors you believe had been invisibly wired with invisible explosives please?

And could you list the floor numbers?

Thanks.

Can you answer this please? I've asked about four times now and it is absolutely central to your claims.
Thanks.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh I am sorry editor. The answers to both those questions is no. Hope that helps

e2a: I am doing you the favour of ignoring the facetious bits.

 

[TheArchitect]

No, YOU ARE TALKING BOLLOCKS.

I think it's quite clear who's talking bollocks here, Jazz. Every single one of those quotes - your own words - proves you to be either delusional or a liar. It was YOU who claimed that the core could take the entire load. It was YOu who claimed that the hat could transfer the entire load. It was YOU who claimed that the safety factor (a meaningless term in this instance) was 600% (an invented figure) then 200% (a wrong figure).

I fail to see how your waffle about DCR affects in any way my proof that the core could take the entire weight of the towers, fully loaded, which is extremely simple.

For a man who claims to have an good grasp of mechanics, you seem woefully ill informed of basic structures. The DCR is the Demand to Capacity Ratio. Hence a DCR of 0.8 (say) means 20% safety factor or redundancy (120% in your parlance).

And they prove that the hat truss and core couldn't carry the full building load when they were intact, never mind after the impact, explosion, and fire. Or in other words, all that "technobabble" is what shows you to be full of crap when it comes to structural calculations.

The 1968 NYC building code specifies that steel members and assemblies had to be able to take 250% of its design load without collapse for a week. And the NIST reports says that the WTC was designed in excess of that code requirement where load bearing was concerned.

Unfortunately for you, this entire section of the report actually requires a reasonably analytic mind and understanding of structural theory. Because it forms part of the general discussion in the lead up to the DCR calculations. But I think you've more than adequately proven that you don't know what the DCR figures mean.

When arguing that the core could stand up for itself and take the entire load of the WTC, I am simply proving assertions I made and countering your accusations that they are 'ludicrous'. Stop trying to make out that I am saying that they disprove official collapse theories.

That's a blatant fabrication, and that's why I posted the quotes to show 100% crystal clear to everyone here that you are a liar.

To be honest, I think you've been exposed as not having a clue TA, others might even be noticing it too, and you are floundering. Indeed BTL and Crispy have each done far better than you have. Of course, you can't admit that you were wrong, so you'll carry on misrepresenting every word I say, and repeatedly C&P stuff I've previously dealt with ad infinitum. How tedious.

I find it quite amusing that you use ad-hom whenever you get caught fabricating calculations, misquoting sources, or telling fibs. If you think you can prove me wrong, do so with calculations and reason. However the fact that I have actually studied relevant subjects such as structures and was part of the design team for Manchester's tallest building does rather seem to put you at a disadvantage.

Incidentally, I love the way you've never told us what YOU actually believed happened on 9/11......

 

[editor]

Oh I am sorry editor. The answers to both those questions is no. Hope that helps

Why are you declining to answer a simple, courteous question when it is so central to your claims?

If you are unable to back up your claims, just say so rather than trying to sweep the question under the carpet.

 

[TheArchitect]

Why are you declining to answer a simple, courteous question when it is so central to your claims?

If you are unable to back up your claims, just say so rather than trying to sweep the question under the carpet.

I suspect he's being sarky, because he doesn't believe that they explosives (ha) were "invisible".....

 

[editor]

In which case:

Hi Jazzz

Could you tell me precisely how many floors you believe had been carefully and perfectly wired with vast amounts of explosives please and explain why not a living soul on earth noticed a thing?

And could you list the exact floor numbers, please?

Thanks

 

[Jazzz]

I think it's quite clear who's talking bollocks here, Jazz. Every single one of those quotes - your own words - proves you to be either delusional or a liar. It was YOU who claimed that the core could take the entire load. It was YOu who claimed that the hat could transfer the entire load. It was YOU who claimed that the safety factor (a meaningless term in this instance) was 600% (an invented figure) then 200% (a wrong figure).

I DID claim the core could take the entire load, I was right.

I DID NOT claim the hat truss could transfer the entire load, you are either lying or under some illusion.

I said I'd found a figure for the redundancy of the towers of 600%, which I didn't take as gospel, which still could be fair for all I know, and which I didn't need anyway to prove my assertion. That you are still making any sort of deal about it now just displays that all you can do is nit-pick and repeat yourself.

The section I quoted from the NYC building code proves that the core could take the entire gravity load of the building, sorry. If the core was up to code, and NIST tells us that it exceeded it, then it had to be able to take 250% of the design load. It is a very simple calculation to multiply .5 by 2.5 and come up with an answer greater than 1.

For a man who claims to have an good grasp of mechanics, you seem woefully ill informed of basic structures. The DCR is the Demand to Capacity Ratio. Hence a DCR of 0.8 (say) means 20% safety factor or redundancy (120% in your parlance).

And they prove that the hat truss and core couldn't carry the full building load when they were intact, never mind after the impact, explosion, and fire. Or in other words, all that "technobabble" is what shows you to be full of crap when it comes to structural calculations.

I don't need to quibble about where you are going wrong here (of course, I've never made such a claim for the hat truss). YOU need to explain, clearly, how on earth the core could not pass the 1968 building code requirements if it could not hold up the entire load of the tower.

If you want to make an argument about DCR figures, you'll need to explain clearly how the maximum demand is calculated (if the sum of demand figures is going to exceed the design load then there's additional redundancy right there) and then, of course, explain where the yield points of the steel come in too. Aren't they providing redundacy on top of your DCR figures? If they aren't, then with yield points of 1.9 for yielding then it would seem to me that we have capacity being lower than demand, which would make for a bizarre engineering term. Of course, doubtless you'll explain all this clearly as you are the one who knows about it. After you've clearly explained, of course, how the core could pass the 1968 NYC building code and still not hold up the entire load of a tower.

However the fact that I have actually studied relevant subjects such as structures and was part of the design team for Manchester's tallest building does rather seem to put you at a disadvantage.

I DO hope you had some engineers checking your stuff.

Incidentally, I love the way you've never told us what YOU actually believed happened on 9/11......

Ha! I've told everyone else, many times.

 

[editor]

Ha! I've told everyone else, many times.

Really? So exactly how and where did they place the explosives please?

Floor numbers and precise locations please, and a credible explanation about how not a living soul in the known universe spotted a single thing amiss.

Thanks!

 

[Jazzz]

In which case:

Hi Jazzz

Could you tell me precisely how many floors you believe had been carefully and perfectly wired with vast amounts of explosives please and explain why not a living soul on earth noticed a thing?

And could you list the exact floor numbers, please?

Thanks

Hello editor

No, I could not tell you precisely how many floors had explosives nor which floors they were. The other part of your question is one that's been discussed many times. I would invite you to come down on Tuesday to put it to William Rodriguez - someone who knows far more about how the WTC worked than either me or you.

 

[editor]

No, I could not tell you precisely how many floors had explosives nor which floors they were.

Right. So you can't actually muster even a remotely credible explanation as to how these explosives were invisibly brought into the building and invisibly installed and invisibly wired up by invisible operatives (all of whom have miraculously remained mum about it ever since), and yet you still cling to the belief that the towers were blown up by invisible explosives?

That's a bit weird, isn't it? Do you believe in invisible people and invisible explosives, then? Can you give me a single example from anywhere in the world of a huge, occupied tower block being invisibly wired up for demolition without anyone noticing a thing?

And there's no point asking William Rodriguez - despite being a caretaker he failed to notice anything! Not a single cable caught his eye, let alone great teams of evil operatives filling the building up with vast amounts of explosives, drilling holes all over the place while installing the Magic Inviso-Shield (TM) that prevented every single person in the entire building from noticing a thing!

 

[Jazzz]

I can give what is in my opinion a credible explanation as to how explosives were laid but not one to your satisfaction. We've been over this many times and there's nothing to be gained from doing so another 50 times is there?

 

[detective-boy]

...technobabble...

a.k.a. technical terms; architectural and engineering principles; facts; calculations; expert opinions and views ...

a.k.a. (perhaps more pertinently) "Things Jazzz neither knows nor understands" ...

 

[editor]

We've been over this and there's nothing to be gained from doing so another 50 times is there?

If you can't produce a remotely credible explanation as to how invisible explosives could have been invisibly installed in both towers or give a single example of a large occupied skyscraper being brought down by such explosives, then there really is no point you pursuing your claims that explosives brought down the WTC. That's simple logic.

So can you offer an explanation about how this remarkable feat was achieved, or not?

 

[TheArchitect]

I DID claim the core could take the entire load, I was right.

I DID NOT claim the hat truss could transfer the entire load, you are either lying or under some illusion.

Liar:

Let's note you still seem to the think that the core couldn't stand on its own (utter baloney), nor have you confirmed whether you think it was impossible for the hat truss to redistribute loads from the perimeter to the core (they could).

Why should we take anything you say at face value when you come out with such blatant falsehoods?

 

[TheArchitect]

If you want to make an argument about DCR figures, you'll need to explain clearly how the maximum demand is calculated (if the sum of demand figures is going to exceed the design load then there's additional redundancy right there) and then, of course, explain where the yield points of the steel come in too. Aren't they providing redundacy on top of your DCR figures?

Actually, no. The NIST report - which I'll remind you is more or less universally accepted by the engineering and architectural communities - explains it all in great depth. YOU are the one disputing it. It is YOUR job to tell us, in comparable detail to the report, where it goes wrong.

Inventing things like a 600% safety factor doesn't count.

Let's make life easy for you and tell you a bit more about how NIST did the structural modelling. The relevant section is NCSTAR1, pages 92 onwards:

• Lelie E. Robertson Associates (they designed the building, you might just have heard of them) constructed a computer model using SAP2000 computer modelling software
• Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill - one of the most respected firms in their field - were commissioned to check the Robertson model
• NIST then carried out a third check on the computer model
• This model, developed and checked by some of the best structural engineers in the world (who one assumes have rather more than an "intuitive" understanding like you) was then used to calculate demand to capacity ratios for the structure
• Demand is the combined effects of dead, live, and wind loadings.
• Capacity is the calculated maximum dead, live, and wind loadings on the structure (or part thereof)
• Nominal design-capacity ratios (DCR) must be less than 1.0, although figures higher than this do not automatically mean failure due to (for example) additional safety factors inherrent in yield figures and the like.
• -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).

So what we have here is an extremely robust computer modelled structural appraisal, which in turn provided accurate global DCR figures.

Now at this point, any argument about the application (or otherwise) of any building codes over 30 years old becomes academic. The structure has been accurately modelled using techniques not available then. The issue of codes is a straw man.

Now if you want to disagree with any of this, why don't you let us see your amazing computer model which says that the building should have stood? And after that, you can also answer all the other points you're evading such as horizontal ejection of debris........

 

[Jazzz]

I DID claim the core could take the entire load, I was right.

I DID NOT claim the hat truss could transfer the entire load, you are either lying or under some illusion.

Liar:

Let's note you still seem to the think that the core couldn't stand on its own (utter baloney), nor have you confirmed whether you think it was impossible for the hat truss to redistribute loads from the perimeter to the core (they could).

Why should we take anything you say at face value when you come out with such blatant falsehoods?

Thanks for revealing that you are completely clueless, and that I am no liar.

It's pretty obvious to most that saying that the hat truss could redistribute loads from the perimeter to core absolutely does not imply that it must do so for the entire perimeter loading.

You fool!

 

[Jazzz]

Actually, no. The NIST report - which I'll remind you is more or less universally accepted by the engineering and architectural communities - explains it all in great depth. YOU are the one disputing it. It is YOUR job to tell us, in comparable detail to the report, where it goes wrong.

<tedious, irrelevant list>

So what we have here is an extremely robust computer modelled structural appraisal, which in turn provided accurate global DCR figures.

But when I say that the core could take the entire design load of the WTC, I'm agreeing with the NIST report, because it says that the WTC exceeded the requirements of the 1968 NYC building code where load bearing was concerned. Again, your list does nothing to disprove that, and completely ignores the points I made earlier, particularly the one about yield points of the steel.

Now at this point, any argument about the application (or otherwise) of any building codes over 30 years old becomes academic. The structure has been accurately modelled using techniques not available then. The issue of codes is a straw man.

I have no idea what you are saying here. NIST confirms that the building more than satisfied the code requirement for load bearing. The code requirement says that the core could take the entire load of the WTC. Hence point is proven. None of that changes because NIST has a computer.

Now if you want to disagree with any of this, why don't you let us see your amazing computer model which says that the building should have stood? And after that, you can also answer all the other points you're evading such as horizontal ejection of debris........

What on earth would that have to do with the question of whether the core could take the entire load of the WTC?

Face it TA, you were wrong, and have made yourself look a fool, and continue to do so.

 

[Jazzz]

• Nominal design-capacity ratios (DCR) must be less than 1.0, although figures higher than this do not automatically mean failure due to (for example) additional safety factors inherrent in yield figures and the like.
• -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.

Oh look - even though you didn't know it, your quote confirms I was right about the yield figures of the steel providing additional safety on top of the DCR figures! And then we have additional load bearing capacity as the tensile strength will be higher than the yield point too, of course.

 

[editor]

Oh look - even though you didn't know it, your quote confirms I was right about the yield figures of the steel providing additional safety on top of the DCR figures! And then we have additional load bearing capacity as the tensile strength will be higher than the yield point too, of course.

So... about this unprecedented demolition of an occupied massive skyscraper without a single person noticing any of the explosives.

Care to come up with a remotely credible explanation about how this remarkable, amazing, unique feat of deception was achieved or are you going to keep on wriggling and bullshitting all night long?

Come on. Make some fucking sense.