9/11 media happenings

[pk]

The lift shafts were in the core weren't they?

And they were seriously compromised by the impact of the jets.

Not to mention the figures going out of the window in terms of integrity of steel given the prolonged and sustained massive fires.

It doesn't have to be at melting point to be considerably weakened, a fact which is so often lost on CT "experts" Googling like mad to try and counteract rational arguments.

 

[TheArchitect]

Jazz

[LOL]

(1/DCR)* steel yield point * tensile strength/yield strength

[LOL]

Can I just be quite clear before I demolish your latest attempts at structural calculations: does post #1287 represent your entire structural calculation regarding core stability or are you going to pull something else out the hat later?

Crispy

I'm quite happy to demolish this one, mate, but he seems to be pursuing a divide & conquer strategy so if you want to take the lead on it just let me know. I can't decide if it's like second year structures on a particularly dull CPD (ah well, beats an hour on Corian I suppose).

Arch.

 

[Crispy]

Sorry, the wind went out of my sails a while back
It's metal deck roofing today. Joy.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I fully accept that it was not substantiated - who cares?

Jesus christ, WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT FIGURE?

If you can't see why this is important this is pointless. If you are happy to quote any old shit, without first checking on basic facts and credibility, any position you take becomes laughable.

I may as well create a website saying that the towers fell becuase I, using my god like powers, commanded them to. Hey, this can't be substantiated, but who cares? IT'S THE TRUTH COZ IT'S ON THE INTERNET.

 

[detective-boy]

I'm amused that other posters - presumably mindless cheerleaders - seem to think I've somehow been 'beaten' here, because the reverse is true.

As one of the mindless cheerleaders who you no doubt have in mind, I would simply point out that the reason that I do not engage in trying to make a contribution is that, insofar as engineering is concerned, I know absolutely fuck all. So I do not know enough to engage in a technical debate.

You, perhaps, would be well-advised to do the same.

When it comes to investigation, however, you will find that I do engage with you (and, usually, tell you you are talking bollocks).

 

[Jazzz]

Sorry, the wind went out of my sails a while back
It's metal deck roofing today. Joy.

Crispy knows when he's beaten. But is unfortunately too cowardly to concede the point. I've lost respect for him. Having said that if he did, it would mean that everyone would realise that our emperor TA has no clothes, so he's in a spot.

 

[editor]

Do you really believe in the existence of invisible explosives that can be silently and invisibly installed by invisible people Jazzz?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Crispy knows when he's beaten. But is unfortunately too cowardly to concede the point. I've lost respect for him. Having said that if he did, it would mean that everyone would realise that our emperor TA has no clothes, so he's in a spot.

This is like watching a proud mother pointing out that all the soldiers are marching out of step apart from her beloved son.

 

[Crispy]

Crispy knows when he's beaten. But is unfortunately too cowardly to concede the point. I've lost respect for him. Having said that if he did, it would mean that everyone would realise that our emperor TA has no clothes, so he's in a spot.

I'm not beaten, Jazz. Just tired. I am as likely of convincing you as I am of convincing a Christian that there is no god.

Our mutual friend TA has years of experience in his field, and you refuse to listen to him. You may have to hack away the presentation, but there is a solid core of facts and analysis backing up his posts. Your latest large post, on the other hand, is a mishmash of units and calculations that even my relatively-untrained eye can see blunders and misunderstandings. TA said he's working a fully detailed technical explanation/rebuttal. I look forward to it. Perhaps we can put the two up against each other on a dedicated s.eng board?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Perhaps we can put the two up against each other on a dedicated s.eng board?

Wouldn't matter. They would only have years of taining and experience to back them up.

Jazzz has TEH INTERNETZ.

 

[Yossarian]

I'm amused that other posters - presumably mindless cheerleaders - seem to think I've somehow been 'beaten' here, because the reverse is true.

You were beaten the minute began debating architecture with people who were actual architects, they've just been playing with you for 45 pages.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm not beaten, Jazz. Just tired. I am as likely of convincing you as I am of convincing a Christian that there is no god.

Our mutual friend TA has years of experience in his field, and you refuse to listen to him. You may have to hack away the presentation, but there is a solid core of facts and analysis backing up his posts. Your latest large post, on the other hand, is a mishmash of units and calculations that even my relatively-untrained eye can see blunders and misunderstandings. TA said he's working a fully detailed technical explanation/rebuttal. I look forward to it. Perhaps we can put the two up against each other on a dedicated s.eng board?

Nope Crispy. My proof that the core would take the entire design load of the towers based on the 1968 NYC building code is quite sound, and very simple. You have not identified any fault with it, nor has TA. I have now backed it up with very simple calculations based on NIST's own figures for DCR, steel yield point, and tensile strength of the steel used in the core. By contrast, TA has simply presented either the DCR or the steel yield point to represent the safety factor (you were very happy to lecture me about the steel yield point earlier, why so quiet now?). This ignores the fact that the two are separate safety factors (NIST tells us so) and completely ignores the fact that the tensile strength of A36 steel is markedly higher than the yield point. When we account for that we start getting solid figures of over 300% safety, which is in keeping with NISTs confirmation that the core design exceeded the requirements of the 1968 code.

By all means let's post the question 'could the core take the entire design load of the WTC?' on an engineering board, I have no doubt who is right here.

 

[editor]

Can you provide a remotely sane explanation as to how every single person in an entire office complex housing tens of thousands of people all failed to notice mysterious workmen installing explosives, drilling holes and running wires all over the place yet please?

 

[editor]

N
By all means let's post the question 'could the core take the entire design load of the WTC?' on an engineering board, I have no doubt who is right here.

Can you find a single credible engineering board that supports your fact-free view that the towers were exploded by invisible explosives?

 

[Jazzz]

I'm dreading this 'fully detailed technical explanation/rebutall' because that just tells me it's going to be a load of technobabble and waffle.

If anyone is to correct me, I demand a simple explanation of the major fault. Or indeed an alternative calculation of the safety factor. But that's impossible.

In fact, seeing as you (Crispy) can see blunders why don't you point just one out (except in my 585% calculation, because that's quite superfluous to requirements and just for demonstration)?

 

[WouldBe]

I'm dreading this 'fully detailed technical explanation/rebutall' because that just tells me it's going to be a load of technobabble and waffle.

Should be interesting.

On this point I believe Jazzz is right.

 

[8den]

I'm dreading this 'fully detailed technical explanation/rebutall' because that just tells me it's going to be a load of technobabble and waffle.

Or in English;

I'm dreading this 'fully detailed technical explanation/rebutall' because that just tells me it's going to be a load of maths and physics.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Should be interesting.

On this point I believe Jazzz is right.

Throw enough shit at the wall and eventually some will stick.

Then again Jazzz's orriginal point was that the core shouldn't have collapsed at all because it was too strong, therefore explosives would have been needed. Entertainingly the pictures he used at another point proves just how wrong he was about that.

 

[TheArchitect]

Come on Jazz.

Can I just be quite clear before I demolish your latest attempts at structural calculations: does post #1287 represent your entire structural calculation regarding core stability or are you going to pull something else out the hat later?

Are you 100% happy with all the figures? Have you checked them? Does this constitute your proof that the core safety factors were of the stated order?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT FIGURE?

I ask again.

 

[WouldBe]

I ask again.

Jazzz shows a calculation a few posts up.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Jazzz shows a calculation a few posts up.

Methinks Jazzz didn't do some calculations and then post up his 600% figure.

Methinks Jazzz found the figure on a conspiraloon website and then has made/copied some figures to fit.

I await his denial (and source) with baited breath.

 

[Jazzz]

Methinks Jazzz didn't do some calculations and then post up his 600% figure.

Methinks Jazzz found the figure on a conspiraloon website and then has made/copied some figures to fit.

I await his denial (and source) with baited breath.

Well let me ask you this bees - what is the question under dispute?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Well let me ask you this bees - what is the question under dispute?

Where did you find the 600% figure?

A report?

A website?

Your own calculations?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well let me ask you this bees - what is the question under dispute?

If you can tell a simple truth ie. that you pulled the figure unthinking from prisonplanet and took it as gospel.

 

[editor]

Jazz, can you provide a remotely sane explanation as to how every single person in an entire office complex housing tens of thousands of people all failed to notice mysterious workmen installing explosives, drilling holes and running wires all over the place yet please?

 

[Jazzz]

Where did you find the 600% figure?

A report?

A website?

Your own calculations?

Who cares? I didn't need it. I discarded it and proved the point anyway. If I say I can run the 100m in twenty seconds, then you go and say no you can't, then I go take a scooter and get there in ten, then you complain 'no that's not fair, do it properly' - but then I go and run it on my hands in fifteen while juggling six balls, I've proved myself correct. I can't believe I'm having to put up with this nitpicking.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz, can you provide a remotely sane explanation as to how every single person in an entire office complex housing tens of thousands of people all failed to notice mysterious workmen installing explosives, drilling holes and running wires all over the place yet please?

William Rodriguez is talking tomorrow, why don't you come down and ask someone who really knew about the WTC that question? If not, I'll ask him for you. Aside - they wouldn't have used wires, didn't you pay attention earlier in the thread? Another aside - did you really reopen the thread so you could repeat this question for the ten billionth time? Hardly worth it is it.

 

[editor]

William Rodriguez is talking tomorrow, why don't you come down and ask someone who really knew about the WTC that question?

As far as I know, he didn't see anything either, so there's not much point in asking him. And, frankly, his opinion on this matter carries no more worth than anyone else working there who also failed to see the invisible explosives.

Aside - they wouldn't have used wires, didn't you pay attention earlier in the thread?

You didn't come up with anything remotely plausible when I asked. You still haven't.

So let's try again.

Can you give me one example from anywhere in the world of a major, occupied skyscraper being wired (remotely or otherwise) with enough explosives to bring the entire structure down perfectly without a single soul noticing a thing?

Could you please give some examples of these amazing explosives that are so small that they can miraculously be smuggled and installed into one of the busiest buildings in New York without anyone suspecting a thing?

Where were the explosives placed? How many floors?

What were the explosives made of?

What amazing properties did they possess that no drilling was needed and they could just be hidden away rather than placed with extreme precision like all known demolition practices?

How come not a single crash investigator, demolition expert or structural engineer in the known world agrees with your opinion that these invisible explosives were used?

Looking forward to a straightforward, non wriggling reply.

 

[editor]

Who cares? I didn't need it. I discarded it and proved the point anyway.

Where did you get the figure from in the first place?
You clearly believed the original source to be worth quoting, so why won't you say what it was?

Or are you really in the habit of just making up stuff as you go along, only to discard it when challenged? That's hardly an intelligent way to debate. In fact, some might call it rather devious.