9/11 media happenings

[detective-boy]

SAP2000 computer modelling software

I think I've spotted the problem ...

... Jazzz is a SAP (2006) ...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

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

Where did you find this figure? Can you not see why the answer to this question is important?

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz: 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.

Liar, and here is the proof (bolding mine):

the central core is obviously going to be capable able to hold up more than 500,000 t (the weight of a fully loaded WTC tower)

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.

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

the core could 1) hold itself up 2) support the weight of the entire WTC

What you said in a rambling but consistent manner over the last 20 pages or so is quite clear, Jazz, and proven by the above quotes. You clearly think that the core has sufficient redundancy to take the entire 500,000 tonnes weight of the building and that the loads were being transferred via the hat trusses.

Why are you lying Jazz? Is it because the DCR figures prove that the core could not take the entire building load and hence your argument is proven to be complete bollocks?

 

[TheArchitect]

(1) 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.

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

1. I look forward to your detailed rebuttal of the DCR figures. But this will require you to actually read the relevant sections of the report(s) and learn something about structures, so I'm not holding my breath.

2. Because these prove that the additional load was not within the capacity of the core.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jings, Cirvens, Help ma Boab

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

I think this just about sums up the quality of Jazz's arguments.

He plucks a figure of 600% from nowhere, is unable to substantiate it or even provide a source - what was your source, Jazz? - and then is presented with the DCR and design figures which prove it to be wrong.

But he still thinks that it "could be fair".

 

[editor]

I'd like to know where this 600% figure came from too.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I'd like to know where this 600% figure came from too.

A ticket for next weeks lottery says prisonplanet

 

[TheArchitect]

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!

Nice one - an interesting point which the woowoos never pick up; if anyone should have been alerted to suspicious working practices, lots of new workmen and unexplained works, strange cabling and fittings, etc. then you would assume that it should have been the jannie....er, caretaker.

 

[Jazzz]

Liar, and here is the proof (bolding mine):

What you said in a rambling but consistent manner over the last 20 pages or so is quite clear, Jazz, and proven by the above quotes. You clearly think that the core has sufficient redundancy to take the entire 500,000 tonnes weight of the building and that the loads were being transferred via the hat trusses.

Why are you lying Jazz? Is it because the DCR figures prove that the core could not take the entire building load and hence your argument is proven to be complete bollocks?

No you damn fool, what I have consistently said is that

1) the core could take the entire weight of the WTC

2) hat trusses could transfer load from the shell to the core

... both of which are correct, and you certainly contested the first, and appeared to contest the second. I made the second point as an aside because you insisted that the core could not take more than 50% of the floor loading.

I have explicitly NOT claimed

3) the hat trusses could transfer the entire perimeter load to the core

...and no matter how many times you quote the first two, it will not ever mean I have claimed the third.

This is very basic logic. So there are either two possibilities for your conduct here - one is that you are really pretty dumb. The other is that you are a very aggressive nasty piece of work who knows full well that they may be talking crap but is happy to do anyway. I don't know which of the two you are, but rather you than me. Either way, it ain't pretty.

Your DCR figures prove that the core could take the entire load, all you need to is multiply on the additional redundancy provided by the specified steel yield points and there you have it. You mentioned those earlier, didn't you? But now you keep ignoring them. Of course, that may not reflect all the redundacy. Do you need me to walk you through your calculation?

To be honest, I've realised I don't need to get wound up by you - you're a joke

 

[editor]

Jazzz: about this claimed secret demolition of two occupied, working massive skyscrapers.

Can you give some examples of similar sized buildings being blown up by such invisible means from anywhere else in the entire world?

And could you produce a remotely credible explanation about how this remarkable and unique feat of deception was achieved without a single person noticing any explosives, wires, cables, or even the personnel wiring up the building during what must have been a lengthy, complicated and noisy installation period?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

For the nth time (I've lost count):

Where did you get the 600% figure from?

 

[Jazzz]

For the nth time (I've lost count):

Where did you get the 600% figure from?

TA found it listed himself - you can go back through the thread to find it. I just mentioned it was a figure I found. I'm more than happy to stand corrected on it.

The question under debate was could the steel core take the entire design load of the WTC. As things are the point is proved with both the 1968 NYC building code and the DCR/steel yield point figures which TA has provided himself, isn't it bees? So why the obsession over this figure which I was happy to discard?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I just mentioned it was a figure I found.

Where? FFS. for a truthseeker you really have an aversion to telling us what The Truth is.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz: Liar

[LOL]

So Jazz falls back to his old, tired line about being misunderstood.
Unfortunately I don't see how we could misinterpret such a clear statement as this:

The core is quite capable of taking the whole weight of the building, and then some, presumably with a large factor of redundancy. The space frame is not claimed to be at all necessary to keep the building up.

or

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

There's a simple solution to this Jazz. Something that means we can't ever catch you lying again. Tell us, clearly and unequivocally, what YOU think happened on 911. Provide detail and cover all the key points. Include your assessment of the structural causes of the collapse (CD, etc) and evidence behind it.

You've been asked to do so several times already. Strange how you've never managed to respond.

 

[editor]

You've been asked to do so several times already. Strange how you've never managed to respond.

He won't even offer small details of how 'They' did it.

So far it looks like he still really believes the WTC towers were invisibly wired by a team of invisible operatives using mystery invisible explosives in an unprecedented act of invisible demolition.

 

[TheArchitect]

TA found it listed himself - you can go back through the thread to find it. I just mentioned it was a figure I found. I'm more than happy to stand corrected on it.

Jazz,

I do so like reading back through the various posts on this thread because it shows just what a liar you are. Let's look at what you REALLY said about core safety factor:

I found a figure for the redundancy of the core - 600%.

That's it. No caveats. No wavering or prevarication. YOU found a figure of 600%. But strangely you were unable to substantiate this figure in the face of our requests and started backing down:

600% seems hardly unreasonable. On the contrary, 100% (the figure you seem to want me to accept) is obviously way off.

The 600% was a perfectly reasonable ballpark figure

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.

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.

So what is it Jazz? Do you still believe it's 600%? Can you actually tell us where you got this figure, or are we to assume you just made it up?

The only sources we can find are woo-woo sites such as http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html or the widely discredited Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) at http://www.physics911.net/reynolds. Funnily enough, despite their google summaries, I can't actually find the reference to 600% in any of their pages.

http://physics911.ca/Reynolds:_Colla..._Center_Towers repeats the 600% claim, but without any source or calculations - a mistake repeated by Infowars at http://www.infowars.com/articles/sep...rs_collaps.htm.

So unless you can produce a source, Jazz, I think we're going to have to take 600% as unsubstantiated. Which is strange for someone who makes such onerous demands and far reaching criticisms of the NIST report. It's clear that you're applying an inconsistent evidencial standard, and anything but an open mind.

It is YOUR job to state YOUR case properly and without ambiguity, not mine. If you cannot do so, then you should politely withdraw

YOU have accused the US Government of killing 3,000 of its own men, women and children. I understand from other posters that this is a position which you have consistently expounded for some considerable period of time. I challenged you to explain your hypothesis.

Every single piece of evidence you have thus far posted has been thoroughly debunked. Your interpretation of supporting documents and statements has been shown to be poor. Quotes have been cherry picked. Some items - such as the 600% redundancy - appear to have no basis whatsoever. One of the things which struck me as I re-read the board was the pack of lies you posted about their being no major fires. Another was your habit of cherry picking quotes. On top of this, you always run away from arguments that look too hard (for example the horizontal ejection of debris).

Face it; you're not arguing from any reasoned position. You WANT to believe that Bush did it because you hate Bush. That's enough for you, and you're not going to let reasoning or evidence stand in your way.

 

[Crispy]

Bush is just Their puppet, you know.

 

[TheArchitect]

Bush is just Their puppet, you know.

Which is hardly surprising, given that he clearly has all the brains of a teacup....

...but give Jazz his due, he's not started with any NWO, Illuminati, or Lizards type rubbish and I've seen nothing to suggest he's going to.

Actually, you can imagine Bush planning it:

Want to invade Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Gotta get in there, topple the Saddam, get the oil, the building contracts, get the money flowing, get filthy white rich, wipe my butts with gold-leaf toilet tissue. Gotta find some way to justify invading Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Gotta make up 19 fictitious hijackers from the Middle East to "attack" the USA, let's see for country-of-origin we'll go with 15 Saudis, 2 from UAE, 1 Egyptian, 1 from Lebanon...

DOH!

 

[friedaweed]

Which is hardly surprising, given that he clearly has all the brains of a teacup....

...but give Jazz his due, he's not started with any NWO, Illuminati, or Lizards type rubbish and I've seen nothing to suggest he's going to.
Actually, you can imagine Bush planning it:

The wise man always keeps his aces until last


*Scarpers

 

[Jazzz]

The Architect - back to school

Dear oh dear.

Is this the best you can do, TA?

Faced with the complete collapse of your attacks - the core proved to stand up for itself, and take the entire weight of the tower too - faced with YOUR OWN POSTS disproving your own silly argument - all you can do is repeat the same lies and the same nitpick over a figure I happily withdrew?

HAHAHAHAHAHA.




I'm not even going to get annoyed, you are too silly, and I am almost feeling sorry for you.

But I might just go over it all again soon.

You twit!

 

[Pete the Greek]

Hey, Jazzzzz...












































go to bed.

 

[TheArchitect]

Game, set and match

Faced with the complete collapse of your attacks - the core proved to stand up for itself, and take the entire weight of the tower too - faced with YOUR OWN POSTS disproving your own silly argument - all you can do is repeat the same lies and the same nitpick over a figure I happily withdrew?

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

No sign of any reasoned argument. No attempt to actually respond to any of the points put to him. Yup, Jazz loses on yet another cornerstone (how many more can there be) of his theory.

Let's just look at the list again:

1. The FE quote. Jazz quoted out of context seeking to claim that FE disputed the findings of the NIST report, when in fact their problem was limited to aspects of NY building codes and the fighting effort.

2. Free Fall times. Jazz claimed that times were "nearly free fall" and hence, by implication, CD however they were in fact 20 to 60% slower (depending on whose figures you use) which in fact is proprotionally substantial.

3. Intensity of Fires. Jazz claimed that the fires in the towers were minor or going out, based upon a report from the 78th floor of WTC (and thus outside the main fire zone). Proven wrong, not least by photographs immediately prior to the collapse showing smoke and flame. He says he might have made a "minor" mistake.

4. Claims of core integrity. Jazz claimed that the core was designed or should have acted (he's a bit unclear on this) as a freestanding opbject some 400m high despite the fact that (a) it's an absurd structural argument, (b) the core was damaged in the aircraft impact, and (c) it would have got further damaged by the collapsing material.

5. Safety factors in the design. Jazz stated unequivocally that there was a safety margin of 600% but when challenged has been unable to post a source. In fact, Jazz now denies ever claiming the 600% figure with any degree of certainty. In actual fact the DCR figures prove the safety margin was typically less than 1.5.

6. Weight of towers. As part of the 600% argument, Jazz claimed that the weight of the towers was 500,000 tonnes each but is unable to tell us where he got this figure or respond to my calculation suggesting it's a bit high. He also managed to multiply 250,000 (half the alleged weight) by 6 and get 3million, so there you go.

7. Redistribution of Loads. Jazz said that the hat trusses redistributed all the facade load to the core, which could then support it (see above) because of the huge safety factor. Now he denies it. Presumably I made up his quotes or something.

8. Pyroclastic flows. Yup, Jazz claimed that the dust cloud was a pyroclastic flow. However in the face of questioning he conceded that people and buildings had not been incinerated by searing volcanic gases and claimed it was just like a pyroclastic flow. We're still waiting for him to tell us what this actually means.

9. Horizontal ejection of debris. Jazz claimed this was proof positive of explosives, but has been unable to respond to a lengthy post including detailed calculations showing how this could occur as part of the NIST sequence.

10. Thermal transmission in steel. Jazz is trying to argue that the steel (and one assumes this would extend to all steel) would wick away the heat so rapidly that it would never fail. In the face of a doing from other posters (I've largely steered clear) he cherry picked NIST quotes which suggested that temperatures didn't exceed about 250 degrees. And got caught - again.

However what is most puzzling is his spectacular technique of relying upon papers and other evidence which actually debunk his very argument. Apparently these pesky engineers are right some of the time. A classic is the Eagar paper which he posted in support of tower weight, but which broadly confirms the NIST findings re: fire AND says that the collapse sequence exceeded the loadbearing capacity of the lower structure by a factor of over 64.

Now I'm only a lowly architect who actually studied subjects such as structures and fire engineering at university level, and who has worked on the design of tall buildings in the UK, however it seems to me that there's a certain lack of substance in Jazz' arguments which merely confirm that his theories are rooted in belief, not engineering or science.

 

[MikeMcc]

Jazz,

It doesn't matter how much you rant about TA, he has hung, drawn and quartered you on this thread. It's painful to watch you resorting to personal attack rather than trying to answer the questions.

 

[editor]

Now I'm only a lowly architect who actually studied subjects such as structures and fire engineering at university level, and who has worked on the design of tall buildings in the UK, however it seems to me that there's a certain lack of substance in Jazz' arguments which merely confirm that his theories are rooted in belief, not engineering or science.

Indeed. How else could you explain his bizarre belief in invisible bad people installing invisible explosives?

 

[TheArchitect]

Indeed. How else could you explain his bizarre belief in invisible bad people installing invisible explosives?

Ed,

Hehe. Quite. Perhaps it was Van Rijn's elf that did it?

Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, if Jazz seeks to dispute whether or not I am actually a real architect then I'm quite happy to share RIBA, ARB, and RIAS registration details with you for verification purposes (subject to them not being posted, because I cannae be bothered with CTers spamming me at work).

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I just mentioned it was a figure I found. I'm more than happy to stand corrected on it.

I ask again.

Where did you find it?

Do you not yet see why the answer to this question is so important when it comes to this debate? Credibility of sources is paramount when it comes to this sort of discussion.

 

[Jazzz]

Gosh - another huge list of crap from TA. This, dear posters, is designed to disguise the fact that he has been exposed as talking absolute rot.

The last ten pages or so of thread have centred on two questions:

1) Could the core stand up for itself?

2) Could the core take the weight of the entire WTC?

Both I claimed YES - and was ridiculed by TA for it. And still am!

But I have proved both of these - and TA has not been able to provide any decent criticism of either of them. Other posters should note that Crispy, who is also an architect and a much fairer poster than TA, has fallen silent on these points.

I'm amused that other posters - presumably mindless cheerleaders - seem to think I've somehow been 'beaten' here, because the reverse is true. I can only conclude that they haven't actually been following the detail, and are just somehow taken in by TA's rhetoric. No matter - anyone that wants to reveal what a fool they are by simply shouting from the sidelines without actually making a semblance of a decent point, or actually showing that they actually have any appreciation of the discussion that has taken place, is free to do so. It will just make me laugh more.

Allow me to repeat my proof of the second point. It relied on the 1968 NYC Building Code, which stated that steel members or assemblies must be able to take the weight of 250% of the total design load they would be expected to, for a week before failing.

Given that we know the core was expected to take at least 50% of the design load (TA's own figure - the actual one is greater) that means that the core had to be able to take at least 2.5 * 0.5 = 125% of the design load of the towers. And the NIST reports tells us that the WTC was specified to exceed the NYC building code in that regard.

QED.

A very simple calculation, does anyone want to show me where it is wrong? For TA certainly hasn't. Any takers?

TA's response was to produce quotes of the DCR figures - demand/capacity ratio figures for the steel. 0.83 if I recall correctly. Amongst a great deal of babble he claims that that reflects all the redundancy of the steel. But it does not! Because the DCR tell us a working maximum for the load - the steel is then specificied to EXCEED that working maximum and this extra redundacy is defined by the yield point.

So I reminded him of the earlier redundacy figure he quoted - not the DCR, but the very yield point of the steel! And he said it! This is quoted by NIST as 1.9 for yielding. So we have our core taking:

Design load * 1/(DCR) * Steel Yield Point
= .5 * 1/0.83 * 1.9
= 114%

So by TA's own figures, the core can take AT LEAST 114% of a fully-loaded WTC before it reaches the yield point.

Game, set and match to me, I believe, Mr. Architect. Don't you feel a bit foolish that I am explaining redundacy calculations to you? After all, I just started learning about them.

But wait - we can do much, much better than that! Because the 'yield point' of the steel - the point where it won't spring back from - is not actually the tensile strength - the total amount of load the steel can take before it fails. Crispy explained that to us earlier. So, let's have a look at the tensile strength of the steel core. To do this let's consult NIST's own evaluation

• Core columns were almost all constructed of 36ksi or 42ksi steel (page 35/86)
• The 36ksi steel is "A36 structural steel" with a minimum tensile strength of 58ksi and a maximum of 80ksi. The 42 ksi is 'A440' High Strength structural steel with a minimum tensile strength of 63 ksi. (page 44/86)

Now, you'll note that the tensile strength of these steels (the point where the steel fails) is significantly higher than the yield point (the point where it won't spring back). Let's take the figures for the A36 steel - quite possibly this comprised the majority, and the ratios are very similar in any case.

So our new redundancy figure is (1/DCR)* steel yield point * tensile strength/yield strength

taking the minimum tensile strength:

= 1/0.83 * 1.9 * 58/36
= 368%

...this is a minimum figure, and means we can be quite sure that the core could hold up 184% of the design load of the WTC. 368% is now quite a redundacy figure, isn't it bees?

But we can still do better than that!

 

[editor]

How do these 100% invisible explosives and 100% invisible operatives work then Jazzz?

 

[Jazzz]

For that used our minimum tensile strength figure. What happens if we take the maximum? This is likely a much truer figure, for NIST tells us of the steel analysed:

"Majority of steel found stronger than minimum requirements. Approximately 87 percent of the recovered WTC steel specimens tested exceeded the required minimum yield strengths"

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

So let's take our maximum tensile strength of 80ksi.

And let's also bring in an estimate for the redistribution of load via the hat truss - on a cold day, the shell would tend to contract, and the purpose of the hat truss was to hold it up. In doing so this would produce an extra demand on the core, and I surmise that this was accounted for when they calculated demand figures. So let's say the maximum demand for the core was calculated with an extra 15% from the expected demand with a fully-loaded WTC. (I do not know exactly what extra tolerance was introduced but this may be quite reasonable). This gives us a redundacy figure of... wait for it bees...

(jazzz's maximum demand ratio) * (1/DCR) * (steel yield point) * (maximum steel tensile strength/steel yield strength)

= 1.15 * (1/0.83) * 1.9 * 80/36

= 5.85

= 585%

 

[Jazzz]

I ask again.

Where did you find it?

Do you not yet see why the answer to this question is so important when it comes to this debate? Credibility of sources is paramount when it comes to this sort of discussion.

But I didn't need it to prove the point under dispute! I fully accept that it was not substantiated - who cares? I've more than proved the point using NIST own figures, and using minimum values, and not making any assumptions of my own.

If you want to tell me where I've gone wrong in proving that the core could take the entire design load of the WTC, then by all means do so. I would invite anyone to do the same. Including you TA! Although I'm not getting my hopes up.