9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

back to media events

Big article in the Daily Mail today re: Loose Change

An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11

The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001.

Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C.

The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.

Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.

Or that's how the official story goes.

rest of article

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Any chance this thread can be renamed?

I suggest:

"pwning - a step by step guide"

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Jazzz, how are the answers to those questions doing? It must have slipped your mind i suppose.

 

[editor]

Jazzz, how are the answers to those questions doing? It must have slipped your mind i suppose.

Oy! Get behind in the queue.
I'm still waiting for him to explain away the strange case of the mysterious invisible explosives and the unobservant thousands.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Oy! Get behind in the queue.
I'm still waiting for him to explain away the strange case of the mysterious invisible explosives and the unobservant thousands.

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

 

[TheArchitect]

They have worked back, using the steel strength, to determine a working capacity for each member. This is not the point where it would yield, nor the point where it would yield accounting for variations in yield strength as you think - it is a working maximum for which the member would be considered 'fully loaded' under (as they say) normal working conditions. In some isolated cases they found that members had a DCR>1 under the design load, which would demonstrate minor flaws in the original design, but ones easily accommodated by the factor of safety inherent in the steel strength.

Crap.

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...

That's quite clear, Jazz.

1. NIST used the nominal steel strength, ie 36ksi, not the actual test results.

2. The DCR is the spare structural capacity over and above design loads.

3. Above that figure, the beams are technically failing however because actual steel strength is higher there is not failure.


You've just got no idea of how to interpret technical documents or issues, have you? A propos of which, are you ready to tell us where you magicked up the 600% figure for?

And while we're at it, you've gone awfully quiet about how the structure should have arrested a dynamic load of 6400% design capacity - a figure which you must agree with, since you posted the link to the article in the first place!

This is so much fune that I don't even feel the need to review the FE crap you posted, the free fall speed, or any of the other things you already gow pwned on!!

 

[TheArchitect]

You know, I'm kinda imagining that the BBC do a CT version of Dragons Den......CTers have 5 minutes to sell their ridiculous pitch, then 5 technical experts (architects, engineers, CD specialists, pilots, and the like) get to completely demolish them live on TV......

 

[Jazzz]

Crap.

That's quite clear, Jazz.

1. NIST used the nominal steel strength, ie 36ksi, not the actual test results.

2. The DCR is the spare structural capacity over and above design loads.

3. Above that figure, the beams are technically failing however because actual steel strength is higher there is not failure.

Nope you've got it wrong mate.

How can the quote be any clearer?

"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... "

You can obviously tell that your idea about it is wrong as (1/ mean DCR ratios) is far less than the specified steel strength (1.67)! Which would mean that if you were right, the design loads would all have be hugely underestimated and the steel overloaded during normal operation.

 

[Jazzz]

This is so much fune that I don't even feel the need to review the FE crap you posted, the free fall speed, or any of the other things you already gow pwned on!!

Well if you enjoy being exposed as being far less authoritative than you think you are, that's up to you.

 

[editor]

Still refusing to answer my questions then, Jazzz?

Do you really think anyone's being fooled by your transparently evasive antics here?

 

[editor]

Well if you enjoy being exposed as being far less authoritative than you think you are, that's up to you.

Says the man who posted up a figure of 600% and, when challenged for a source, refused point blank to say where he got the number from.

Way to go Jazzz with his fantasy facts!

 

[Jazzz]

Still refusing to answer my questions then, Jazzz?

Do you really think anyone's being fooled by your transparently evasive antics here?

oh yap all you want editor. I'm resigned that you will do so. Of course it makes no difference how I respond. If I give you a lengthy reply, you'll just ask yet more questions. Then if I answer those you'll go back to the original one and claim I never answered it. And so on. So, I'm just ignoring you instead. Same result of course, but saves me the work

 

[MikeMcc]

oh yap all you want editor. I'm resigned that you will do so. Of course it makes no difference how I respond. If I give you a lengthy reply, you'll just ask yet more questions. Then if I answer those you'll go back to the original one and claim I never answered it. And so on. So, I'm just ignoring you instead. Same result of course, but saves me the work

My bold, it's something you do with monotonous regularity.

 

[TheArchitect]

Well if you enjoy being exposed as being far less authoritative than you think you are, that's up to you.

Only one of us is degree qualified in architecture and a member of the RIBA working on tall buildings. The other makes up statistics such as "600%".

So on balance, your ad-hom is a bit rich.

 

[TheArchitect]

Nope you've got it wrong mate.

How can the quote be any clearer?

"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... "

You can obviously tell that your idea about it is wrong as (1/ mean DCR ratios) is far less than the specified steel strength (1.67)! Which would mean that if you were right, the design loads would all have be hugely underestimated and the steel overloaded during normal operation.

Ultimate yield is complete failure, after a number of intermediate points of failure including a transient hardening phase. Yield point is failure point, when plastic deformation occurs.

If you don't know this kind of basic information, it speaks volumes...

 

[TheArchitect]

oh yap all you want editor. I'm resigned that you will do so. Of course it makes no difference how I respond. If I give you a lengthy reply, you'll just ask yet more questions. Then if I answer those you'll go back to the original one and claim I never answered it. And so on. So, I'm just ignoring you instead. Same result of course, but saves me the work

Simple solution:

1. Post cogent, accurate answers.

2. Answer queries

3. Don't make up facts ("600%"!) or misquote articles (too many to mention).

 

[8den]

Simple solution:

1. Post cogent, accurate answers.

2. Answer queries

3. Don't make up facts ("600%"!) or misquote articles (too many to mention).

That would involve Jazzz changing his writing style to one that is completely different than the way he is currently posting.

 

[Jazzz]

Ultimate yield is complete failure, after a number of intermediate points of failure including a transient hardening phase. Yield point is failure point, when plastic deformation occurs.

If you don't know this kind of basic information, it speaks volumes...

That's the NIST quote. It says that the 'capacity' in DCR refers to neither of those failure points - unlike you. Rather, it reflects the working capacity of the member. My last post should have proved that to you, by the rather clear result that if it didn't, the tower would have been heavily overloaded during normal operation.

But it's nice to hear you making a disctinction between yield points and ultimate failure - because you've been barking on about how the yield point will be the point of failure

 

[TheArchitect]

But it's nice to hear you making a disctinction between yield points and ultimate failure - because you've been barking on about how the yield point will be the point of failure

You have absolutely no idea about what you're talking about, and that proves it. Try reading a bit more about materials performance, and I don't mean googling.

I'll try explaining it is simply as possible:

- At yield point plastic deformation occurs and failure begins. Simple enough?

- The steel moves. Buckles. Load paths, design calculations, the lot all go tits up. Simple enough?

- Ultimate failure is a theoretical point where the steel collapses into teeny bits. But its academic because the whole design went tits up when plastic deformation and failure occured.


But given that you can't tell the difference between the two, that you don;t know why yield point is different from tensile strength, and you make up statistics ("600%"!) I don't expect this will bring you closer to the path of reason.

 

[Jazzz]

- Ultimate failure is a theoretical point where the steel collapses into teeny bits. But its academic because the whole design went tits up when plastic deformation and failure occured.

If the building is to collapse plenty of steel must reach the point of ultimate failure.

What part of "component capacities, taken at unfactored (working) loads and at working stresses, not at ultimate loads or yield stresses... " are you still having trouble understanding?

 

[TheArchitect]

If the building is to collapse plenty of steel must reach the point of ultimate failure.

So basically you say that the structure can accommodate significant movement following plastic deformation and failure before it collapses?

1. Aye, right. Get real.

2. Prove it.

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..."

You seem to have some problem with reading comprehension.

 

[Jazzz]

So basically you say that the structure can accommodate significant movement following plastic deformation and failure before it collapses?

1. Aye, right. Get real.

2. Prove it.

Clearly a building can't collapse without any steel failing completely. So the point of ultimate failure is hardly a theoretical one. That was the point I was making.

You seem to have some problem with reading comprehension.

No, you've got the wrong idea. It makes perfect sense for them to use the nominal steel specifications to determine the working capacity. This reflects the design intentions of the building. There is absolutely nothing in that quote that says that 'capacity' in DCR reflected anywhere near yield stresses, and they specifically say otherwise. You are the one with reading comprehension problems, and I dare you are attempting to disguise it with bluster. There is no way they could use the actual steel strengths to determine member capacity, for the very good reason that they only tested a tiny portion of it.

I repeat:

What part of "component capacities, taken at unfactored (working) loads and at working stresses, not at ultimate loads or yield stresses... " are you still having trouble understanding?"

 

[editor]

oh yap all you want editor. I'm resigned that you will do so. Of course it makes no difference how I respond. If I give you a lengthy reply, you'll just ask yet more questions. Then if I answer those you'll go back to the original one and claim I never answered it. And so on. So, I'm just ignoring you instead. Same result of course, but saves me the work

Why do you you keep running away from facing the reality of your stupid claims?

My questions have been succinct and to the point, and you're fucking lying when you claim you've answered them.

But let's put it to the test. Please provide the URLs to the credible answers you've given to these oft-asked questions:

Exactly where - and in which offices and on what floors - were the explosives located?
What were the explosives made of?
Who installed them?
How come not a living soul out of the tens of thousands of people using the WTC every day noticed these explosives being brought into their offices, drilled into their walls and wired up?
Can you give a single example of a large occupied building being secretly demolished in this manner?
Oh, and exactly where (URL/source please) did you get this 600% figure from?

Thanks.

 

[Jazzz]

I refer you to my above quote.

 

[editor]

I asked for URLs please Jazzz, not more of your dishonest wriggling.

All of those questions have been asked many, many times, and still you continue to avoid answering them.

Why is that? Can't you face the truth?

 

[Jazzz]

I refer you again to my above quote. There is nothing 'dishonest' about it

 

[editor]

You're a liar. You have not answered my questions.

But let's not quibble. Shall I start a poll to see who in this thread agrees with your contention that you've actually answered my questions with credible answers, as you claim?

Or would that be too much reality for you to handle?

 

[Jazzz]

Don't accuse me of lying when I have done nothing of the sort. I have not claimed to answered your whole silly list and have no intention of doing so. If you want to start a silly poll, it's your prerogative.

 

[TheArchitect]

Don't accuse me of lying when I have done nothing of the sort. I have not claimed to answered your whole silly list and have no intention of doing so. If you want to start a silly poll, it's your prerogative.

Jazz,

You have consistenly lied and misrepresented evidence throughout this thread, whether deliberately or otherwise.

- You claimed that the firemen's radio transmission proved there was no serious fire. This was proven wrong.

- You claimed that collapse times were near free fall speed. This was proven wrong.

- You claimed that the core had a reserve capacity of 600%. This was proven wrong AND you have refused to tell us where you magicked it up from.

- You implied that FE disagreed with the NIST report. This was proven wrong.

- You claimed that tensile strength and yield strength were the same thing. This was proven wrong.

- You have cheery picked quotes from articles which you thought proved your case, but it was proven that they actually debunked yours.

Your whole CT is an unsubstantiated joke. Your inability to explain your own crazy explosives theory and then taking pot shots at Ed for asking for more details is just the icing on the cake.

Face it. You lost about 30 pages ago.

 

[detective-boy]

- because you've been barking on about how the yield point will be the point of failure

Whereas you have been ... well, just barking really.