Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just come across this, it's a debate about whether the moon is made of rock or cheese. Thought I'd post it here as it contains themes that are apparent in conspiraloon logic.
http://www.skepticreport.com/lighterside/mooncheese.htm

An excerpt, (from the pro-rock moon scientist)
"Scientists don't have time to chase down every half-baked theory that gets thrown at them. We work based on what we know. We know that the only materials ever brought back from the moon were rock. Nobody has ever shown evidence of cheese composition. You can't expect us to take twelve steps backwards just to satisfy your idiotic demands."
 
As I understand it:

The NY Fire Brigade concluded that without backup generators in Tower Seven this third tower would not have collapsed.

I think the reason for this is the twelve thousand gallons of diesel fuel which apparently went missing in the aftermath of the aircraft impacts.

The backups in Tower Seven (at various places in the tower) were fed from one diesel circulating system. Three pumps supplied this and diesel pumped continuously through a primary pipe loop and back to reservoir. Each individual genny would have had a small local tank which, using a system like a ballcock in a cistern .. would open a valve into its supply pipe from the primary pipe loop .. draw diesel to replenish the local tank and then switch off till the local tank level fell again.

The DC pump was capable of pushing 350 fallons per minute into the primary loop. And twelve thousand gallons lost at a rate of the full 350 galls per minute equates to the delay between the twin towers collapse and the consequent collapse of Tower Seven.

Whilst having no knowledge of what US inquiries decided had happened, fuel transfer tampering is not unknown in UK. It has been reported (1987 and 1995) as allegedly being the cause of an overpump incident at a London city bank and of the two identical backup genny failure incidents at Guys due to a non-pump which led to delayed stall when the local tank ran out.

On 18th April 2005 there was a failure incident at Maidstone Hospital during the election campaign which led to a two day evacuation of A and E. Tony Blair directed, that day, that reports of suspected sabotage consistent with the IRA Garland Plan be copied to the Northern Ireland Office. He later (2006) transferred a request (to compel investigation under the Civil Contingency Act 2004) to John Reid who had responsibility for homeland security.

John Reid has so far failed to give a decision as to whether he will compel inquiry.

So the pre-sabotage of keypoint backup generator systems in various ways, including reversing fuel transfer signal wiring (2 minutes work), is not an unknown suspicion in UK.

As I understand it diesel would not burn hot enough to melt steel but the quantity of heat from 1200 gallons could distort a steel structure and trigger collapse.

When the Scottish Energy Minister was the physicist Ian Grey he called for report on the suspected sabotage of backup power systems and on receipt he called in UKAEA POlice to second guess the Nuclear Inspectorate report concerning the nuclear leaj incident at Dounreay in 1998 (A four billion decommissioning exercise ensued) due to backup power failure. Govt deny that the first consignment of former Soviet weapons grade material was being processed at the time of the serious nuclear leak incident of 1998.

UKAEA Police, as far as I know, reported to Mike Smith the Head of Civil Nuclear Security at DTI whose position is thyat sabotage is not a security issue. He says it is a health and safety issue. The Health and safety Executive say it is an issue for the industry itself to pursue with police. Up to now the police think it is not their jurisdiction and have suggested that it would be a trading standards issue.

If it were not so serious it would be funny.

(Chernobyl was in the final analysis due to failure of its diesel backups to supply the emetrgency shut down systems and we had I think near misses due to backup failures twice in 1998 .. Hunterston B and Bradwell ?)
 
But if they took out the basement first, why didn't the tower collapse from the bottom, instead of from the impact point?
 
Crispy said:
But if they took out the basement first, why didn't the tower collapse from the bottom, instead of from the impact point?
homer_doh.jpg


Jazzz, pictured after reading that post ... :D
 
Jazzz said:
If that is the case then how do you explain the requirements of the 1968 NYC Building Code which state that members and assemblies had to be able to take 250% of live and dead loads (albeit with deformation)?

So how do you explain the DCR calculations?

How do you know that the design complied with the regulations?

How do you know that modelling was sufficiently accurate 30 odd years ago?

Basically, Jazz, you don't know the difference between tensile and compressive loads and you don't understand basic structures re: failure of steel at yield point. Why should we listen to your inane structural "arguments"? You just don't know when you're beaten.


As for the 64 times bit - well there was nothing to fall on the core but itself. If it was going to go, why were there not large movements as heated steel got to the point where it could no longer hold? And one by one columns fail, the building lurching? The point is, we don't have an explanation for the dynamics of the collapse at all, and it's certainly not explained by 'the top section fell on the bottom and there you go'.

Crap.

45,000 tonnes of the tower collapsed on to a structure which simply didn't have the capacity to take it. Joints and steel members were designed to take far, far, far lower loads. They failed in microseconds.

And as for the "there was nothing to fall on the core but itself", we've ALL answered that several times:

1. For a start, a tonne of feathers still weighs a tonne. It doesn't matter whether the debris is intact or in pieces when it impact the lower section, it still results in a transfer of momentum.

2. The only person that thinks the core can still stand up on it's own is you. Eveyone accepts that this is a composite structure, and just because the core acts against the overturning moment (hint, this is a complex technical term you don't understand) doesn't mean it acts as a spire.

3. Tower floors were attached to the core. They didn't just magically disconnect and fall away without damage.

4. You've been told UMPTEEN TIMES that the core columns - around a third - were badly damaged or completely severed in the impact. A fact you conveniently forget as you claim that the core should have stood.


But one of my favourites is the fact that you didn't seem to know that the lower core somehow managed to survive for 15 to 20 seconds AFTER the main collapse until we showed you the pictures!!! AND now it's being put forward as part of your theory!!

Jazz and logic; not the closest of aquaintances......
 
Crispy said:
But if they took out the basement first, why didn't the tower collapse from the bottom, instead of from the impact point?
The perimeter had more than enough capacity to take the entire weight of the WTC also - especially as it was so lightly loaded on the morning of 9/11. However, it is only speculation that this is what occurred.
 
TheArchitect said:
...
But one of my favourites is the fact that you didn't seem to know that the lower core somehow managed to survive for 15 to 20 seconds AFTER the main collapse until we showed you the pictures!!! AND now it's being put forward as part of your theory!!

This would be the core that had the foundations demolished, wouldn't it...
 
Jazzz said:
The perimeter had more than enough capacity to take the entire weight of the WTC also.

Crap. Only if you confuse yield and tensile strengths, and magically overlook how the loads would transfer to the outer envelope.

But hey, prove me wrong. And use REAL calculations for a change, instead of making stuff up.
 
MikeMcc said:
This would be the core that had the foundations demolished, wouldn't it...

Yup, that's right. Jazz thinks that they blew the tower, then waited a few seconds so as to leave lots of incriminating evidence, THEN blew up the core for good measure.

From the bottom

Even though the collapse was from the top.




Impressive, eh?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzz
The perimeter had more than enough capacity to take the entire weight of the WTC also.
Missed that one in there, so now the perimeter could support the entire stucture rather than the 'massively over-engineered core'...

I think the words straw and grasping spring to mind
 
MikeMcc said:
Missed that one in there, so now the perimeter could support the entire stucture rather than the 'massively over-engineered core'...

So lets get this straight....

1. The core was designed to take the entire weight of the structure

2. The outer envelope was designed to take the entire weight of the structure

3. The safety factor (haha) was anywhere between 300 and 600%, based on Jazz's figures.


Boy, the original architect and engineer really wasted a stack of cash, eh? Presumably their client was reaaally happy at seeing all his money wasted on such massively redundant structures!
 
Jazzz said:
I don't know where the plane is. That includes the area around the Pentagon. Hell I'm not sure it even took off!

Translation:

I am accusing the US Government of killing 3,000 of its own men, women, and children but to be honest I can't actually explain my theory in any sort of cogent way or post evidence. Nor do I know the difference between yield point and tensile strength.

:eek:
 
TheArchitect said:
So lets get this straight....

1. The core was designed to take the entire weight of the structure

2. The outer envelope was designed to take the entire weight of the structure

3. The safety factor (haha) was anywhere between 300 and 600%, based on Jazz's figures.


Boy, the original architect and engineer really wasted a stack of cash, eh? Presumably their client was reaaally happy at seeing all his money wasted on such massively redundant structures!

That would mean that these two towers would withstand a fairly close nuke without major structural damage, damn, must be CD (mini-nukes in the basement?), but then how would the rescue services manage to walk about in there which the woo-woo sites are so keen to show us.
 
MikeMcc said:
That would mean that these two towers would withstand a fairly close nuke without major structural damage, damn, must be CD (mini-nukes in the basement?), but then how would the rescue services manage to walk about in there which the woo-woo sites are so keen to show us.

I can't believe that Judy Wood, a cornerstone of the woowoo movement, has caused a furore by suggesting some sort of directed energy beam weapon!

Man, ya gotta hand it to the NWO. They even invent weapons when they need to!
 
TheArchitect said:
So how do you explain the DCR calculations?

How do you know that the design complied with the regulations?

How do you know that modelling was sufficiently accurate 30 odd years ago?

There is nothing that needs explaining about the DCR calculations! You thought that capacity represented the yield point of the members - it didn't.

I know that the design satisfied the requirements of the 1968 NYC Building Code where load bearing was concerned because that is precisely what NIST tells us, and that's as a result of their modelling, not any done 30 years ago.
 
Jazzz said:
There is nothing that needs explaining about the DCR calculations! You thought that capacity represented the yield point of the members - it didn't.

I know that the design satisfied the requirements of the 1968 NYC Building Code where load bearing was concerned because that is precisely what NIST tells us, and that's as a result of their modelling, not any done 30 years ago.
For the third or fourth time, with a continous loading, the yield point IS the capacity!
 
MikeMcc said:
For the third or fourth time, with a continous loading, the yield point IS the capacity!
It's not the capacity that is referred to in the DCR ratios. Pay attention MikeMcc! :p

Allow me to repeat for your (and TA's) benefit:

"5.2 Calculation of Demand/Capacity Ratios

The DCRs were calculated by dividing component demands by component capacities, taken at unfactored (working) loads and at working stresses, not at ultimate loads or yield stresses... The component capacities were based on the nominal steel strength as specified in the original design documents..."


NISTNCSTAR1-2A


Understand? Or do I need to elaborate on this further?
 
Jazzz said:
As you say editor. I fully accept that I cannot provide you with answers that you will personally find satisfactory.

Jazzz, I really wish you would stop pretending that the editor is the only one dissatisfied with your 'answers'.
 
Jazzz said:
It's not the capacity that is referred to in the DCR ratios. Pay attention MikeMcc! :p

Allow me to repeat for your (and TA's) benefit:

"5.2 Calculation of Demand/Capacity Ratios

The DCRs were calculated by dividing component demands by component capacities, taken at unfactored (working) loads and at working stresses, not at ultimate loads or yield stresses... The component capacities were based on the nominal steel strength as specified in the original design documents..."


NISTNCSTAR1-2A


Understand? Or do I need to elaborate on this further?
And...

The DCRs say that there was an extra loading possible above the design loadings and TA has already shown they could not allow for the impact loads that were 64 times greater than the design loadings. What dont you believe about that staement and why?
 
Lock&Light said:
Jazzz, I really wish you would stop pretending that the editor is the only one dissatisfied with your 'answers'.
That's not a fair interpretation of the above quote. Others may not agree with me, and that's fine. it's their business. Thing is though, I won't endlessly interrogate them and demand that they come up with an answer that I find satisfactory - that's how threads go around in circles, and become totally pointless.
 
Jazz, why is it that you are the ONLY one out of all the contributors in this thread (apart from those that one posted a couple of times) that has not delivered a serious description of the processes involved in the destrustion of the towers as they see them. The rest of us have been able to say the towers failed because...
 
Jazzz said:
That's not a fair interpretation of the above quote. Others may not agree with me, and that's fine. it's their business. Thing is though, I won't endlessly interrogate them and demand that they come up with an answer that I find satisfactory - that's how threads go around in circles, and become totally pointless.
They go round in circles because one person, in this case you, keeps disputing the evidence that completely blows your ideas.
 
MikeMcc said:
And...

The DCRs say that there was an extra loading possible above the design loadings and TA has already shown they could not allow for the impact loads that were 64 times greater than the design loadings. What dont you believe about that staement and why?
We're now into analysis of the collapse itself which is a different question.

And you never answered my question about the 1968 NYC Building Code. But I don't keep repeating it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom