9/11 media happenings

[Bob_the_lost]

An all inclusive model would take decades for thousands of engineers in my humble opinion.

Thanks, but as far as i know you don't need an all inclusive model. You merely need one that's good enough, one that simulates the relevant area while removing as many non relevant variables as possible.

As such the complaint shows a lack of understanding of what a FPA is.

 

[editor]

I also agree with the counter-claims of the links editor. Thats why I also wrote:

Why should the American public be expected to fork out millions of dollars extra and scientists be burdened with extra work just to "dispel" the unqualified, unscientific and often frankly bonkers claims of conspiracy fans masquerading as 'truth seekers'?

 

[8den]

Eyewitnesses don't know what they are talking about. Find those eyewitness reports, then try to work out what sort of "explosive" is at work. The ones i've heard of were fireballs, the sort you'd get from kerosene vapour blasts being channeled down the lift shafts.

Not to mention power substations exploding.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Not to mention power substations exploding.

I know that they will do so under the wrong circumstances, and that they let go with a hell of a lot of force (i saw a little one under construction, concrete walls fit for a bombshelter and no direct paths for the blast to leave the building.
Didn't know there were any in the location that could have let go, nor what exactly is needed to get them to explode. Any links to hand?

 

[pocketscience]

Why should the American public be expected to fork out millions of dollars extra and scientists be burdened with extra work just to "dispel" the unqualified, unscientific and often frankly bonkers claims of conspiracy fans masquerading as 'truth seekers'?

I seem to remember an investigation into a blow-job that run into a hell of a lot of money.

 

[8den]

I know that they will do so under the wrong circumstances, and that they let go with a hell of a lot of force (i saw a little one under construction, concrete walls fit for a bombshelter and no direct paths for the blast to leave the building.
Didn't know there were any in the location that could have let go, nor what exactly is needed to get them to explode. Any links to hand?

Sorry I should have been more specific there was a substation in WTC7

http://www.empire.state.ny.us/press/press_display.asp?id=119

I seem to remember an investigation into a blow-job that run into a hell of a lot of money.

Er that was a politcally motivated attempt to impeach a present, you do understand theres a difference right?

Look at 7/7, the woowoo's believe that was an inside job and their evidence is beyond laughable. There's always going to be nutters who believe conspiracy theories, why waste millions when nothing will convince some people!

 

[editor]

Look at 7/7, the woowoo's believe that was an inside job and the evidence is beyond laughable. There's always going to be nutters who believe conspiracy theories, why waste millions when nothing will convince some people!

That fucking nutter on here yesterday claimed that we'd changed urban75's entire modding policy to fit in with Badger Kitten's blog or some such other raving bollocks.

He even went to the bother of typing it all up on Indymedia.

Naturally, like most conspirasupds, he never thought to check the facts with me first.

 

[8den]

That fucking nutter on here yesterday claimed that we'd changed urban75's entire modding policy to fit in with Badger Kitten's blog or some such other raving bollocks.

He even went to the bother of typing it all up on Indymedia.

Naturally, like most conspirasupds, he never thought to check the facts with me first.

Missed that. Where was that bollocks

I hope indymedia binned it as well.

fuck me indymedia's server is really creaking along.

 

[editor]

Missed that. Where was that bollocks

Here's his vital and important news article on indymedia

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/359325.html?c=on#c163857

Apparently, we're all trying to "climb the greasy pole" or something, whatever that means,

 

[TheArchitect]

Consultant Arup has frequently criticised NIST’s analysis of the collapse mechanism.

I'm afraid that I'm going to pick you up on that particular point, working as I do with the boys from Arup's tall buildings group.

The Arup hypothesis, which is backed up by a seperate highly detailed paper from Edinburgh University, does not cast any doubt upon the failure of the structure per se but rather presents the interesting suggestion that any large scale fire would have caused the collapse due to failure of the steel framed structure.

Similarly Arup do not dispute that once collapse had initiated that more or less complete progressive failure was inevitable.

So in what way does this support the "Truth" Movemement, other than perhaps proving that all engineers would not magically keep hush if they disagreed with the NIST/FEMA conclusions?

 

[TheArchitect]

The Architect: No I'm not working in the UK and I've never had any dealings with Ove Arup. I have no experience of tall building structures either!
However, I do have alot of experience in stuctural engineering with other structures that were very relevant to that day!

No problem; I assume that you are, hoewever, a chartered enginner (ICE, IStructE, or foreign equivalent) given some of the technical terms you've been posting on the site? That we can talk in such technical terms without any difficulties?

Having gone through the NIST summary report, it seems to me (and I am simplifying a lot, obviously) that:

1. The towers were built with spare structural capacity, however a significant part of this was compromised in the initial impact. Further damage was cause dby the fires. Although the designers claim that the design was built to accommodate an aircraft impact, no calculations have ever been produced to show the extent of this (Citicorp always springs to mind at times like this); there were (a) no applicable design codes or guidance at the time and (b) limited computer modelling techniques available at the time.

2. The fire weakened the floor trusses, causing sag. This in turn led to deflection of the outer structural envelope (or facade). The steel could not accommodate the required loadings at this point (a buckled structural member will be weaker, even before we consider the impact of buckling on joints and risk of their failure). The hat trusses probably served to redistribute loads, but ultimately exceeded design capacity and failed.

3. At this point, failure of the supporting structure for the upper part of the building is inevitable and what is frankly a massive amount of material begins to move downwards at a 9.8ms/-2. The momentum and mass are substantial.

4. The structure below is not intact, because the hat trusses are no longer doing their work and the bracing effect of the upper structure has been lost. It is overly simplistic to suggest as some alternative accounts do that this portion of the building is sound.

5. The steel joints, etc. are not designed to accommodate the dynamic loadings imposed by the impact of this massive mass and momentum. They are deisgned to accommodate normal loadings, which will be many magnitudes less.

6. They will fail; there is absolutely no doubt about this, from a structural perspective. The time involved with be absolutely minimal. Although not a NIST document, Greening's paper (again you should be familiar with this) gives you a very basic idea of the kind of issues we're talking about.

7. At this point the collapse becomes progressive and self-perpetuating.

Now of course the "Truth" Movemement like to claim that the speed of the collapse is suspicious, but as an engineer I have no doubt that you'll agree
that the sheer mass and momentum of the upper mobile structure is such that it's going to make bugger-all difference. We're talking about tiny fractions of a second each floor, not seconds.

Where, in general terms, do you have professional concerns regarding this conventional account of the collapse and then we can perhaps focus upon them?

 

[pocketscience]

Where, in general terms, do you have professional concerns regarding this conventional account of the collapse and then we can perhaps focus upon them?

Thanks for the summary! I've deleted it out of the quote not because I discount it but mearly not to make the thread a scrollathon. I also don't discount it's theory regarding wtc1 and 2. The link from 8den concerning power substations is also relevent for any wtc7 theories. Appreciated, although not conclusive to any explanation. I should imagine power substations would be sufficiently secured by some kind of overcurrent protection (fuses). Anymore links to info on this would be useful.

Let me explain my real gripe though, before anyone starts barking up the wrong tree (again). The subject of 911 and the subsiquent events/war, will follow me, no doubt to the grave.
Apart from the steel being shipped out of the area very pronto, there are other issues I have. The technical ones (FEA inaccuracies) I've already covered.
Now, thinking completely outside the box as far a technical issues go, this thread started out with the OP posting the link of the Rodreguez interview which I hadn't previously heard. Rodriguez claims about being asked by the Republican party to do public information stints on tv, to promote the war in Iraq for example were quite enlightening to me.
Just to show interest in the subject, however balanced minded, autmatically deems one as a "conspiraloon", "terminally gullable", "boring", "Loon-One-One nutters", "spastic" , "pube sandwich" (hehe), "Numbnut", "scattergunist", "conspira-nadger", "conspiraspud" "wooo-Wooo" etc...
Hell, there was even a squeek from one, claiming that people with low u75 post-counts should be banned from here for discussing the subject.

I can understand the mods not wanting these debates to become a basis for a slagging match but the loonacy is on both sides of the arguement IMO.

As I've said (I think 4 times now): initially I don't believe there was a CD.
However, should it emerge at any time in the future, say for example, from a credible wistle blower, that there were other forces at work that day, then I wouldn't be surprised.

Now I basically can't be arsed to go down the whole road of the investigations despelling the CTs, because frankly, I cant be dealing with the cheesey conspira-*insert fashionable insult here* slaggings.

 

[TheArchitect]

But surely there are two underlying problems with the CD hypothesis:

1. The NIST report is actually consistent with our structural expectations. We know that fire causes failure of steel structures, and we also know that (contrary to wild assertions elsewhere) that the safety factors/redundancy used in the design would have a finite capacity under what were very challenging conditions.

2. There's no physical evidence of CD. Even if we assume that such a criminal process would not be as concerned with collapse pattern as real CD, there are significant questions about how a sufficient quantity of material could ever be placed at the appropriate locations.

One of the greatest things that annoys me about the hardcore CT brigade, I have to admit, is their demand that I respond to ludicrous and half-arsed structural or fire engineering theories.

The classic example is the suggestion that the sheer resistance of the floors below the collapse should have either arrested the dynamic loading of the collapse (on the basis that it previously held the static load) or alternatively that the upper section should have tipped over like a telegraph pole!


Assuming that you are originally from the UK,wWhere did u study, btw? I did 3 years elective structures at Strathclyde, under Professor Fleming. Time had no meaning..............

 

[pocketscience]

But surely there are two underlying problems with the CD hypothesis:

1. The NIST report is actually consistent with our structural expectations. We know that fire causes failure of steel structures, and we also know that (contrary to wild assertions elsewhere) that the safety factors/redundancy used in the design would have a finite capacity under what were very challenging conditions.

Granted. A combination of the damage from the Aircraft and the fire could swings the arguement, maybe. Obviously the impact of the Aircraft would've severely damage any concrete reinforcements of the colunms and the fire protection covering of the cross beams and trusses.
However this can't be the case with wtc7. Any contrary conclusive proof appreciated.
As far as I know there has never been a complete collapse due to fire alone. Madrids Windsor building being a prime example.

2. There's no physical evidence of CD. Even if we assume that such a criminal process would not be as concerned with collapse pattern as real CD, there are significant questions about how a sufficient quantity of material could ever be placed at the appropriate locations.

The bulk of the physical evidence was unfortunatly shipped away before the investigation and as s I mentioned before: only 0.25-0.5% of the steel was ever used for the investigation so how much of that was tested for traces of explosives?

One of the greatest things that annoys me about the hardcore CT brigade, I have to admit, is their demand that I respond to ludicrous and half-arsed structural or fire engineering theories.

Well I see it like this. The official line is also a CT. And there are enough hardcore nutters amongst their "brigade" too. With all due respect to the engineers and scientists that have carried out the Govt investigations, I personally think their contractors are not to be trusted. That's just me, maybe being guilty of the crime of cynicism. Funny, I just thought of that WMD report in Blairs dodgey dossier where parts had been blatantly C+Pd from an undergraduates paper. Come to think of it I can't remember a Govt investigation in recent years where a pro Govt stance whitewash hasn't been a foregone conclusion. Sorry, I digress.

The classic example is the suggestion that the sheer resistance of the floors below the collapse should have either arrested the dynamic loading of the collapse (on the basis that it previously held the static load) or alternatively that the upper section should have tipped over like a telegraph pole!

Yep, that sure is a ludicrous suggestion although one I havent seen or heard myself. The moment of the upper levels would see to it collapsing at the first chance of downward inertia.

Assuming that you are originally from the UK,wWhere did u study, btw? I did 3 years elective structures at Strathclyde, under Professor Fleming. Time had no meaning..............

Yeh, I'm a born and bred South Londoner.
Mechanical Engineering HNC - Croydon Technical College. Many moons ago (pre computers), in conjunction with an apprenticeship at ***. (For whom I still work for in some capacity). 5 years all told. Not to mention the umpteen training course for CAD/FEA upgrades over the years since. Of course that was olde school, before they started turning all the polythechnics into universities and giving degrees out for free in corn flake packets

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The bulk of the physical evidence was unfortunatly shipped away before the investigation and as s I mentioned before: only 0.25-0.5% of the steel was ever used for the investigation so how much of that was tested for traces of explosives?

Traces of explosives? This is one of the problems with CSI, they make things like that sound easy. There is a shitload of different methods to detect explosive traces, the best being a combination of mass spectrometer and gas comatograph. Those aren't field kit, they cost a fortune and to run any serrious volume through them isn't practical.

The more portable types you see are much cruder, as such they tend to be set off by everything under the sun, including kerosene for obvious reasons. Since the building was exposed to a shitload of that it'd set off every detector they have around. However it wouldn't be possible to tell if it was HE or Kerosene that set them off. If you want i can check my notes on this (did a paper for univeristy on the topic).

What you're missing is that there is no sign at all of explosives being used. None. There are no squibs and no baffles to prevent them. There was no time or opportunity to rig them. Hell, i can go on for hours on this.

You don't know explosives, fair enough, i'm not an expert myself but i do know enough to say that it's incredibly unlikely that they had anything to do with the WTC collapse.

As for building 7, if you look in the right place you can see a nice photo of the side facing the twin towers with a chunk out of it. Last i heard the theory was that debris from the towers took out a lot of the supports in one area leading to a chain reaction as the other supports were overloaded and gave way.

 

[pocketscience]

Traces of explosives? This is one of the problems with CSI, they make things like that sound easy. There is a shitload of different methods to detect explosive traces, the best being a combination of mass spectrometer and gas comatograph. Those aren't field kit, they cost a fortune and to run any serrious volume through them isn't practical.

The more portable types you see are much cruder, as such they tend to be set off by everything under the sun, including kerosene for obvious reasons. Since the building was exposed to a shitload of that it'd set off every detector they have around. However it wouldn't be possible to tell if it was HE or Kerosene that set them off. If you want i can check my notes on this (did a paper for univeristy on the topic).


What you're missing is that there is no sign at all of explosives being used. None. There are no squibs and no baffles to prevent them. There was no time or opportunity to rig them. Hell, i can go on for hours on this.

You don't know explosives, fair enough, i'm not an expert myself but i do know enough to say that it's incredibly unlikely that they had anything to do with the WTC collapse.

As for building 7, if you look in the right place you can see a nice photo of the side facing the twin towers with a chunk out of it. Last i heard the theory was that debris from the towers took out a lot of the supports in one area leading to a chain reaction as the other supports were overloaded and gave way.

Surely they'd first inspect the columns for any disfiguration that may hint towards explosives to narrow these tests down? just a suggestion, like.
Anyway, your right, I have no knowlege of explosives, and come to that I've never seen a single episode of CSI.

I mean, It'd be a great way to pre occupy all the people "after the truth" to send them over to a 200,000t pile of steel and inspect it for any tell tale signs. Sadly it's all in the beijing olympic village now hidden behind plasterboard.

 

[Jazzz]

Why should the American public be expected to fork out millions of dollars extra and scientists be burdened with extra work just to "dispel" the unqualified, unscientific and often frankly bonkers claims of conspiracy fans masquerading as 'truth seekers'?

If it's worth $40 million to investigate a Clinton blowjob, surely 9/11 is worth wrapping up... as it was the 9/11 commission cost a few million dollars, and there was no aircraft accident investigation into any of the four flights. I find that curious.

 

[pocketscience]

If it's worth $40 million to investigate a Clinton blowjob, surely 9/11 is worth wrapping up... as it was the 9/11 commission cost a few million dollars, and there was no aircraft accident investigation into any of the four flights. I find that curious.

Been there, but 8den put me right. Something about impeaching a gift.

Er that was a politcally motivated attempt to impeach a present, you do understand theres a difference right?

Look at 7/7, the woowoo's believe that was an inside job and their evidence is beyond laughable. There's always going to be nutters who believe conspiracy theories, why waste millions when nothing will convince some people!

 

[TeeJay]

If it's worth $40 million to investigate a Clinton blowjob, surely 9/11 is worth wrapping up... as it was the 9/11 commission cost a few million dollars, and there was no aircraft accident investigation into any of the four flights. I find that curious.

But it wasn't worth $40 million to investigate Clinton.

 

[8den]

Been there, but 8den put me right. Something about impeaching a gift.

Wow, now you're nickpicking spelling. Tell me what's a colunm?

severely damage any concrete reinforcements of the colunms and the fire protection covering of the cross beams and trusses.

Arsehole.

Just for the hard of fucking thinking the investigation into the Lewinsky business, was a follow up to Ken Starr's original investigation into the "Whitewater" real estaste "scandal". When they couldn't find anything the moved onto the Lewinsky investigation. This was a politically motivated investigation lead by a republican Senate and Congress to impeach a democrat president, you fucktwards. And whimpering about my spelling just shows how you're prancing around that fact.

 

[editor]

If it's worth $40 million to investigate a Clinton blowjob, surely 9/11 is worth wrapping up... as it was the 9/11 commission cost a few million dollars, and there was no aircraft accident investigation into any of the four flights. I find that curious.

I find it rather more curious why you choose to completely discount the overwhelming body of expert testimony and analysis in preference to the half baked, amateur ramblings of woefully unqualified conspiracy fans.

 

[8den]

Surely they'd first inspect the columns for any disfiguration that may hint towards explosives to narrow these tests down? just a suggestion, like.
Anyway, your right, I have no knowlege of explosives, and come to that I've never seen a single episode of CSI.

I find it fascintating that you are a "structural engineer" yet refuse to even attempt to dip your toe into any kind of actual technical argument over why you give the CTers any credence.

Can I ask why would be a tell tail sign that explosives had been used?

I mean, It'd be a great way to pre occupy all the people "after the truth" to send them over to a 200,000t pile of steel and inspect it for any tell tale signs. Sadly it's all in the beijing olympic village now hidden behind plasterboard.

Which "people" would be occupied with this?

A combination of the damage from the Aircraft and the fire could swings the arguement, maybe. Obviously the impact of the Aircraft would've severely damage any concrete reinforcements of the colunms and the fire protection covering of the cross beams and trusses.
However this can't be the case with wtc7. Any contrary conclusive proof appreciated.

Follow this link and download this article for a comprehensive explaination into how WTC7 fell.

Oh and there's no "e" in argument, fuckwit.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

 

[detective-boy]

Now I basically can't be arsed to go down the whole road of the investigations despelling the CTs, because frankly, I cant be dealing with the cheesey conspira-*insert fashionable insult here* slaggings.

" ... the facts", surely?

 

[detective-boy]

The bulk of the physical evidence was unfortunatly shipped away before the investigation and as s I mentioned before: only 0.25-0.5% of the steel was ever used for the investigation so how much of that was tested for traces of explosives?

Maybe none. An investigation never pursues every possible test (because otherwise you'd never get anywhere). Lines of enquiry are assessed and prioritised and alternatives are only followed where there is some meaningful reason to do so.

I would not expect investigators to have "tested for traces of explosives" here unless they had some reason to do so, such as an allegation being made that explosives were involved, witness acounts which led them to that possibility or aspects of what happened remaining unexplained or uncertain following other tests, etc.

 

[Jazzz]

I would not expect investigators to have "tested for traces of explosives" here unless they had some reason to do so, such as an allegation being made that explosives were involved, witness acounts which led them to that possibility or aspects of what happened remaining unexplained or uncertain following other tests, etc.

There were plenty of witness testimonies suggesting that explosives were present, many from firemen.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Surely they'd first inspect the columns for any disfiguration that may hint towards explosives to narrow these tests down? just a suggestion, like.
Anyway, your right, I have no knowlege of explosives, and come to that I've never seen a single episode of CSI.

I mean, It'd be a great way to pre occupy all the people "after the truth" to send them over to a 200,000t pile of steel and inspect it for any tell tale signs. Sadly it's all in the beijing olympic village now hidden behind plasterboard.

Yep, visual evidence of cutting charges is pretty hard to miss. It doesn't cut so much as tear and you get a lot of deformation from the explosive charge that propells the metal slug. So the flange of the girder is deformed below and above the cut, as well as a very ragged tear through the metal, very different to shearing or other modes of failure.

There is a picture of a metal girder from the site that was supposedly cut using cutting charges, but it's far too neat to be HE and the angle is wrong, you have to cut at 90 degrees to the surface otherwise you lose nearly all your energy to the air. I don't think it was Jazzz that found it but it's around on one 911 CT site or another and it annoys me.

 

[WouldBe]

there was no aircraft accident investigation into any of the four flights. I find that curious.

You need to find sufficient wreckage of the aircraft to carry out an aircraft investigation.

 

[8den]

There were plenty of witness testimonies suggesting that explosives were present, many from firemen.

No there's evidence that firemen heard "explosions", there's plenty of evidence for plausible explainations for these explosions, you just have decided that "explosions" = "explosives"

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You need to find sufficient wreckage of the aircraft to carry out an aircraft investigation.

Also you do have to question the point, it's pretty clear that none of the systems onboard the planes failed in a manner that contributed to the "crash" or were they still shot down?

 

[pocketscience]

Wow, now you're nickpicking.

Well, now you know how it feels.

Still think I'm a liar?

BTW, it's "nit"picking! As in Nitty Nora.