911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[fela fan]

You think you're winning this one do you, Jazz? And are you really claiming this guy as a modern-day Galileo? Go down to the corner shop & buy yourself a clue, wouldja. Oh, and look at the poll results while you're at it...

The poll results give us the proof do they? Correctness is achieved by numbers?

Another person easily satisfied. Do you believe the yarn spun by the USG too?

 

[fela fan]

It's sheer exasperation at your stubborn refusal to face the truth.

'The truth'??? You've got that in your possession have you? And just how did you manage to get hold of that?

 

[editor]

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99164.htm
http://ace-mrl.engin.umich.edu/NewFiles/projects/Interaction.html

It's only the third time that I've mentioned it.

He'll ignore it, just like he's ignored all the other links to credible, peer reviewed research I've posted up.

Apparently, it's not the "real truth" unless someone's pissing themselves at it first. Or something.

 

[Jazzz]

Perhaps you might stop ignoring me when I say that the forces imposed when the upper stories collapsed will have been far greater than the steel could have withstood. That's without considering any weak points such as the rivet holes because each section will only be as strong as it's weakest point (rivet holes, stress fracture ends, etc). It's because of the high stresses around the ends of stress fractures acting as propagation paths that you drill the ends out before repairing the fracture.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99164.htm
http://ace-mrl.engin.umich.edu/NewFiles/projects/Interaction.html


It's only the third time that I've mentioned it.

Perhaps you will promise to read the thread more carefully before you make accusations that someone hasn't addressed your post?

 

[fela fan]

"All truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is regarded as self-evident" - Schopenhauer

A timely reminder jazzz, timely indeed! Coz that is exactly what happens on these threads.

It's the sheer strength, the sheer force, the sheer mock outrage at those who believe the USG version to be a pack of lies that always makes me laugh.

How offended they profess to be if one has the 'wrong' opinion.

Of course you're winning the argument, anybody that revolts against the USG version is on the winning side of the argument.

 

[editor]

Sounds just like you then. You've already accepted the one truth, that which the USG have told you.

No, dipshit. I'm accepting the peer-reviewed word of countless highly qualified engineers, structural engineers, metallurgists, construction engineers, aeronautic engineers, crash investigators, fire chiefs, architects, flight controllers, scientists and accident investigators who have staked their reputations on their analysis and research.

And exactly what are you basing your 'doubts' on then?

 

[fela fan]

You mean like your 'Huntley is innocent' claims, yes?

Huntley's got nothing to do with 911.

Anyone can be wrong, but no-one can be wrong all the time.

And only one person can be right all the time, and that is you.

 

[snadge]

Categorically I don't agree with this at all. Steel I-sections can take the most extraordinary forces along their length.

Think how hard you would have to whack a nail with a hammer to get it to fail (and indeed, just fail by bending, never mind shattering). Now bear in mind that I-sections are far, far stronger than rods. Now, imagine a giant hammer which you could wallop the world trade centre with, and you get an idea of the kind of force those steels could take, and take easily.

they are H sections if you want to use the correct terminology.

you are describing shear strength BTW.

Mild steel has a low shear strength, which lowers exponentially with heat.

BTW I have a degree in metallurgy

 

[editor]

A timely reminder jazzz, timely indeed! Coz that is exactly what happens on these threads.

It's the sheer strength, the sheer force, the sheer mock outrage at those who believe the USG version to be a pack of lies that always makes me laugh.

How offended they profess to be if one has the 'wrong' opinion.

Of course you're winning the argument, anybody that revolts against the USG version is on the winning side of the argument.

Nice logic!

People laugh at you because your piss weak, research-free, found-on-ther-internet theory doesn't stand up to credible, independent analysis = ergo, your theory must be right!

 

[fela fan]

No, dipshit. I'm accepting the peer-reviewed word of countless highly qualified engineers, structural engineers, metallurgists, construction engineers, aeronautic engineers, crash investigators, fire chiefs, architects, flight controllers, scientists and accident investigators who have staked their reputations on their analysis and research.

And exactly what are you basing your 'doubts' on then?

I thought you'd got your truth mixed up dipshit. That is not the truth, it is the peer-reviewed word of various people.

And as for your question, the answer is this:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...ect=911_project

 

[editor]

Huntley's got nothing to do with 911.

Ah, right. So the stirring speech about 'truth going through three stages' only applies exclusively to 9/11 theories and not to any of the other barking theories posted here?

 

[editor]

And as for your question, the answer is this:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...ect=911_project

a) that link doesn't work
b) what are you basing your doubts on?

 

[fela fan]

Nice logic!

People laugh at you because your piss weak, research-free, found-on-ther-internet theory doesn't stand up to credible, independent analysis = ergo, your theory must be right!

They laugh at me do they? Glad to be of service, the world is a better place when one laughs rather than cries.

But they'd be laughing on mistaken assumptions though. I don't have any theory. I just have suspicion and doubts. On the other hand you believe the garbage given you by the USG.

 

[fela fan]

a) that link doesn't work
b) what are you basing your doubts on?

Well, just try the main page and navigate yourself from there. I can't check it coz i'm at work.

My doubts are based on two things, one that is addressed on that link, one that is not. Firstly the intelligence the US were constantly getting for years and months and weeks and days leading up to that fateful day.

And secondly the fact that history is littered with actions by those in power who covet yet more power. Actions that they take against their own people, actions they are able to take coz they have become amoral in their pursuit of power.

Perhaps you might explain how the whole thing is down to such incredible levels of negligence?

 

[editor]

And secondly the fact that history is littered with actions by those in power who covet yet more power. Actions that they take against their own people, actions they are able to take coz they have become amoral in their pursuit of power.

Utterly irrelevant.

 

[Jazzz]

Here's something on the construction of the core MikeMMC. The steel at the bottom was 18" by 36" and 4" thick. So by my back-of-the-napkin reckoning, the capacity of the latticed core, 47 columns, to take vertical load is going to be way, way greater than a steel nail which is 3.28m thick (which could take a hammer 10 million times the size of your normal one)!

Interestingly, and not in accordance with your theory, the lower cores of each tower briefly survived the collapse only to fall down a few seconds later;

The collapsing cores are consistent with a thermite reaction pooling molten iron into the central area of the WTC basement, this subsequently melted the core columns and caused the structural failures several seconds later."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core_collapse.html

 

[editor]

On the other hand you believe the garbage given you by the USG.

Are you blind or just stupid? I've just told you what I'm basing my beliefs on and - guess what - I haven't mentioned the USG once.

So quit trying to shove words in my mouth. Unless, of course, you believe that all the highly qualified engineers, structural engineers, metallurgists, construction engineers, aeronautic engineers, crash investigators, fire chiefs, architects, flight controllers, scientists and accident investigators are in on it too?

Is that what you believe? Why else would they fail to recognise these 'suspicions and doubts' that a totally untrained and unqualified keyboard waffler like you seems to harbour?

 

[editor]

Interestingly, and not in accordance with your theory, the lower cores of each tower briefly survived the collapse only to fall down a few seconds later;

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core_collapse.html

Who wrote that article, please?

What's their qualifications? Has it been peer-reviewed? And if not, why not?

 

[snadge]

Here's something on the construction of the core MikeMMC. The steel at the bottom was 18" by 36" and 4" thick. So by my back-of-the-napkin reckoning, the capacity of the latticed core, 47 columns, to take vertical load is going to be way, way greater than a steel nail which is 3.28m thick (which could take a hammer 10 million times the size of your normal one)!

Interestingly, and not in accordance with your theory, the lower cores of each tower briefly survived the collapse only to fall down a few seconds later;



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core_collapse.html

I see you haven't addressed my comments above

 

[Jazzz]

they are H sections if you want to use the correct terminology.

you are describing shear strength BTW.

Mild steel has a low shear strength, which lowers exponentially with heat.

BTW I have a degree in metallurgy

well, I am not wrong in that H-sections (thank you ) take their greatest forces along their length. And there can be no claim that the cores below the impact floor were significantly raised in temperature (all the jet fuel aboard the planes could not have raised the steel core as a whole more than 27 degrees or so, if I remember another napkin calculation I made correctly).

 

[Jazzz]

I see you haven't addressed my comments above

I spent a little while constructing the post I made before.

 

[Jazzz]

Has it been peer-reviewed?

I don't believe any of your links have been peer-reviewed, not that they address the question of whether explosives may have been present.

 

[MikeMcc]

Perhaps you will promise to read the thread more carefully before you make accusations that someone hasn't addressed your post?

My apologies, it was buried amoungst the rest of the posts.

I disagree with you though. Even if the you considered each of the columns to be absolutely perfect, in one section and absolutely vertical, the compressive strength would have been exceeded leading to shattering. Factor in weakening factors and it is clear that there is absolutely no way that they could have withstood the forces involve. Factors that would have weaken the structure against this sort of action are that:

They were build in sections and riveted together, leading to weak points and mis-alignments.

Small mis-alignments leaded to bending, look at how train rails deform following a derailment, depite having a similar cross-section.

 

[MikeMcc]

...

Interestingly, and not in accordance with your theory, the lower cores of each tower briefly survived the collapse only to fall down a few seconds later;

...

Actualy, it does fit in, because the factors that lead to weakening would be less pronounced. The bending moments would be less in the shorter (and more securely anchored) lower sections that in the upper ones, which would have more joints introducing failure points.

Also while the force from the falling debris would have been greater the duration of the impulse would have been over a longer period meaning that the stress applied would not have been comparable

 

[snadge]

well, I am not wrong in that H-sections (thank you ) take their greatest forces along their length. And there can be no claim that the cores below the impact floor were significantly raised in temperature (all the jet fuel aboard the planes could not have raised the steel core as a whole more than 27 degrees or so, if I remember another napkin calculation I made correctly).

H sections have there greatest strength in the torsional rigidiity ( twisting), the beams are rolled.

 

[Jazzz]

My apologies, it was buried amoungst the rest of the posts.

I disagree with you though. Even if the you considered each of the columns to be absolutely perfect, in one section and absolutely vertical, the compressive strength would have been exceeded leading to shattering. Factor in weakening factors and it is clear that there is absolutely no way that they could have withstood the forces involve. Factors that would have weaken the structure against this sort of action are that:

They were build in sections and riveted together, leading to weak points and mis-alignments.

Small mis-alignments leaded to bending, look at how train rails deform following a derailment, depite having a similar cross-section.

Quite alright - I can't claim not to miss posts.

I think your train analogy is instructive - think of the relatively thin H-sections, compared to the massive forces generated by a train coming at them head on - and they bend.

Another key thing about the central core, is that only the material contained within the central core was falling on it! Yet this massively strong structure, with only itself falling on it, came down in a time close to free-fall (apart from the bottom section which as a previous link showed, survived the collapses).


edited to add - posted without seeing the last two posts

 

[Jazzz]

Actualy, it does fit in, because the factors that lead to weakening would be less pronounced. The bending moments would be less in the shorter (and more securely anchored) lower sections that in the upper ones, which would have more joints introducing failure points.

Also while the force from the falling debris would have been greater the duration of the impulse would have been over a longer period meaning that the stress applied would not have been comparable

The problem I was referring to is not that they stayed up during the collapse, but that having survived the collapse, they then came down a few seconds later! (Both towers). This was new information to me.

 

[MikeMcc]

Quite alright - I can't claim not to miss posts.

I think your train analogy is instructive - think of the relatively thin H-sections, compared to the massive forces generated by a train coming at them head on - and they bend.

Another key thing about the central core, is that only the material contained within the central core was falling on it! Yet this massively strong structure, with only itself falling on it, came down in a time close to free-fall (apart from the bottom section which as a previous link showed, survived the collapses).


edited to add - posted without seeing the last two posts

With regards to the bending, that's exactly it. Despite the size of the lower box sections, compared to the length of them they are relatively thin.

Found this during my searches:

Image of box section being removed from the sight

Look at how easily the heavy guage steel (1.5" to 2") has been twisted!

 

[Jazzz]

Look at how easily the heavy guage steel (1.5" to 2") has been twisted!

But that's from the WTC, not a train derailment, so the issue is over what twisted that beam! And as snadge informs us, H-sections take even greater torques than straight loads. I am interested in the way this beam has failed, although I can't tell how it was aligned within the WTC.

Anyway, best get some rest for tonight

 

[editor]

I don't believe any of your links have been peer-reviewed, not that they address the question of whether explosives may have been present.

They haven't considered the question of a UFO attack either.
Why do you think that might be?

I note you still haven't bothered to read the links I've provided or offered an analysis of its obvious errors - like how all these highly qualified experts all somehow managed to completely miss an almighty pile of invisibly installed invisible explosives blowing the towers to pieces...