Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Empire State Building VS WTC


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#46    gisbon

gisbon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 74 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 August 2010 - 12:25 AM

I would like to add to this conversation by asking a simple question.
Did any model account for Friction?
The full weight of a 747 hitting the building at high speeds is probably enough to shoot the degree's up by a good number.


#47    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 August 2010 - 02:43 PM

View Postgisbon, on 27 August 2010 - 12:25 AM, said:

The full weight of a 747 hitting the building at high speeds is probably enough to shoot the degree's up by a good number.
Overall, a rather small number compared with the effects of burning the aviation fuel and the contents of the building.  However, there will be places where this energy is concentrated into small volumes, and this is significant for generating local hotspots.  In other words, it helps to start the fires but doesn't add a lot to the total fire damage.

Edited by flyingswan, 27 August 2010 - 03:28 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#48    The Maloik

The Maloik

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Joined:07 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2010 - 04:15 PM

the plane that hit the ESB was a lot smaller than hit the WTC towers at est 600 mph.
it was also loadsed with fuel!

'Fear The Maloik"
Posted Image

#49    phunk

phunk

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 02 September 2010 - 05:57 PM

View PostW Tell, on 27 August 2010 - 12:09 AM, said:


Here's where we differ. If we're talking 47 "four inch wall" steel box beams, not aluminum aircraft parts nor fire will touch them.

If you're talking about "four inch wall" box columns, you're way off.  The column wall thickness was tapered from a couple inches at the foundation to a quarter inch on the upper floors.


#50    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 September 2010 - 11:53 PM

View Postphunk, on 02 September 2010 - 05:57 PM, said:

If you're talking about "four inch wall" box columns, you're way off.  The column wall thickness was tapered from a couple inches at the foundation to a quarter inch on the upper floors.


You're right when you say they tapered, but I would love to see the engineering were they used quarter wall for the main support in a skyscraper even at the tip top of the building. And the thickness at the base was 4"s. I'm a bit surprised at your info. It's been a long time time since I've seen the prints so could you point me in the direction where you found this?


#51    NeoGenesis

NeoGenesis

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

  • Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

Posted 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM

Q24 said:

Regarding the Empire State Building, it has been  mentioned that the B-25 was rather much smaller than a 767.  It would  also be worth adding that the structure, unlike the WTC, was a steel  frame reinforced with concrete.  The significance of this was noted by the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department of New York: -

"The  more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in  America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine  fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre-WWII  buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like  the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance;  and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The  evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the  Empire State Building to the World Trade Center. The estimate is the  ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40."

http://www.conservap..._State_Building


The  first variable that struck my mind here was the simple rule of thumb in  high rise construction - The more hight the lighter the construction  need to be otherwise the building would simply crubble under its own  weight.

A simple fact. Do you agree ?.

Q24 said:


Whilst  we see that the Empire State Building and WTC crashes were not exactly  the same thing, comparisons can still be made so long as we are aware of  the differences.  It would be incorrect to claim there is no precedent  at all to the WTC event just because no identical building has suffered in identical circumstances.

For  example, both buildings suffered impacts which would have been expected  to dislodge material from around the steel frames.  The Empire State  Building fire burned for approximately 2 hours, a longer duration than  either of the Twin Towers.

Could it not be expected, considering  the above, that the Empire State Building would experience at least some  form of partial collapse and/or structural weakening from the  fire?  But no, not even that - offices on the lower floors were open for  business the next day.

Q24 the scope in your comparison study are to great to have a accurate result to work with.
Factors governing the result outcome are:

- Building design
- The difference in plane design
- Specific feul load
- Metal structure [grade] comparison between planes
- Speed at which impact initiated
- Impact footprint
- Level of penetration
- Effect of specific metal to metal contact study at tested specific speed

Now if you have 2 million plus dollars to spend on aciddent study to get difinetive variables that can tell us yes this condition will produce this specific result thus generate a accurate report about  the WTC collapse... that would be supperb.
But  then neither of us have + 2 million dollars to spend, Makes for the  arguments that we are currently engaged in rather empty in weight of  merit. We are thus looked in a continiuos loop of who's argument has the  sharpest point.

You agree?.

Q24 said:

Still there are other building fire comparisons.  Here are some of the best: -

One Meridian Plaza fire - February 23rd, 1991

First Interstate Bank fire – May 4th, 1988

New York Plaza fire – August 5th, 1970

They  are instantly nullefied due to the specific factors as given above  faced by the WTC  Towers thus can not be trusted for comparison.
However for my arguments deffence I would ask you to search for - Overpass collapse due to tankertruck fire - the mentioned accident happend in open air where many say that a fuel fire can not burn Hot enough to melt steel.

Q24 said:

I'm  unsure as to the extent of the claimed collapse initiations here – it  is certainly known that the building survived and if the floor slabs did  not give way then there was in fact no collapse.  Again, contrast with  the three WTC buildings which also had concrete flooring and yet all  entered global collapse.

<Mentioned fire damaged buildings ruled out due to insufficient factors for case comparison>.  Not  one of these examples came close to the results of the three WTC  buildings on 9/11.  The only evident comparison for that…… is controlled  demolition.

Q24 why are you souly using only one  single factor to run your argument?. You and I both know that it is not  only one part of what makes a engine function, what makes your computer  work  or what is the case for the destruction of a building.

[that…… is controlled demolition].... I would not jump so quickly on the CD bandwagon Q24.
In the words of one of the leading Controled Demolition companies head of operations Mark Loizeaux:

A controlled demolition is not a quiet event.

The  telltale markings and sight of a demolition by means of explosives are  extremely prominent. I take that as a engraved into the grain of stone  fact that no explosives were used.

Q24 said:

Apart from that, the impact damage is too often hyped without cause…

Using WTC1 as the example, in the worst case scenario that NIST could  concoct, a maximum nine of the forty-seven core columns were severed or  severely damaged.  NIST confirmed that such an impact would result in  the core structure carrying only an additional 1% load.  Once it is  known that the core columns had an average safety factor in excess of  2:1, it is understood that there was still huge redundant capacity in  the structures immediately following impact.

I  would not call it 'hyped' much rather the callcuclated damage  that can occur. Why I am saying that is the simple fact of the  difference or gap in theoretical results to that in practical outcomes.
In my eye it is all guess work to be clear as what they had to work with to compile the report was only the wreckage after the Towers fell.

Q24 said:

These facts, and indeed the witnessed impact, are in perfect agreement  with WTC construction manager Frank Demartini, who believed, “the  building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because  this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this  intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that  screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”  In other words, the impacts did very little to the integrity of the structures.

Uhh huh.... And the illustrious architecht ot the Titanic sad that this  ship is unsinkable and look at the end result. So the point of argument  is?. Just to win over the board to construct the building.

Quote

In other words, the impacts did very little to the integrity of the structures.

Bahh what utter hogwash. Neither of us or where there walking through the burning rubble to survey the REAL damage to the building. Neither were anyone else.

Quote

You see, even NIST relied on additional manually input forces to  initiate collapse in their models – their ramped up fire and impact  damage together still were not enough.

You are runing with what you read in that news article that you provided a link of isnt it.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State  Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would  withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

Wonder where they got the correct variables to simulate the plane components when impacting at speed from?.

Quote

WTC7 did not suffer an impact.

From which side of the building?.. Are you only looking at the east side - The pritty side that made the whole mennagery look like a CD stunt?...
May  not be a plane impact but a impact of falling debri from the nearest  Tower and the debries that fell were not mere office chiars.

Q24 said:

Maybe John Skilling got it wrong… but I would have to take his word over  yours.  The interesting thing is, the base analysis that NIST carried  out for the fire situation actually agreed with those earlier findings –  the buildings should not have collapsed.  Of course this was a  politically unacceptable answer and so NIST increased the fire severity  and input the further forces I mentioned above to give the desired  result.

<Bolded mine>
Why....why do you  cling so badly to that single shred of thought. Metal is not a kind  materiall even when exposed to moderate tempratures omitted the senario  when they might be load barring.
Just throwing forward the idea of CD initiated collapse is to easy, to typical.

Q24 said:

The debris damage was superficial in this respect, i.e. had no bearing whatsoever to the onset of global collapse.

With this in mind, the building fires I gave examples of are more than comparable to the WTC7 situation.

It may be of benefit to read the NIST report on WTC7.

They would have us believe that the building imitated a controlled  demolition due to the loss of only one column beginning a chain reaction  of failures which completed in a matter of seconds.  Further, that this  would be the case irrespective of surrounding fire and/or damage.  They  admit there was no heat induced weakening of the columns or  redistribution of the building loads worthy of note (prior to that one  all important column being pushed off centre).  It was this single  column that the entire structure relied upon according to NIST, damage  and fire or not.

Hmm. The construction outline for  WTC 7 tell a story own there own and major factor that I would consider  for the global collapse as indicated bellow:

The fastening requirements for the metal deck are not shown on the drawings, but standard
practice provides puddle welds 12 in. on-center at the beams and side lap welds, screws, or buttonpunching
at 36 in. on-center between adjacent panels of deck
.

Now  I have been working with welding for a good while now and I can  honestly say that a puddle weld is last form of fastening that one would  consider for floor decking.

depending on the span and load. (W16x31 describes a steel wide-flange
beam, sometimes referred to as ‘I’ beams; the nomenclature indicates the cross-section is nominally 16 in.
deep and weighs 31 lb per lineal foot.) Beams spanned directly between the core and the exterior of the
building, at approximately 9 ft on-center spacing. On the north and east sides, the typical beam was a
W24x55 with 28 shear studs, spanning 53 ft.


Wonder what a 10 meter 500 kilogram I-beam would make of those fastening points.....Just a thought as clear as it is obvious - It will tear that fastening stubs like a velcro zipper

I will provide the full pdf document for reading purpouses:
<Well seems that the file size is a bit way to large>

Here is the link to the pdf doc:

http://wtc.nist.gov/...4/appendixl.pdf

Q24 said:

Sorry but they don’t design buildings that way.

I wouldn’t design a shed to be this vulnerable, much less a skyscraper.

Does it honestly appear realistic to you?

It is easy to argue over the construction methods used on the WTC site after the accident ocured Q24.
The  911 accident at best now can be used the same as NTSB uses in plane  accidents that is to study the site as best as possible to produce a  better design that ensures survivability.
It happened - We are best left to learn and continu from there.

Q24 said:

Look at the One Meridian Plaza fire over the page again.  Why is it that  this building can sustain significant structural damage with large  deformation of the steelwork and remain intact, whereas pushing a single  column out of place in WTC7 or a sagging floor in WTC1 leads to global  collapse?

The difference in behaviours is startling.

The official collapse theory is so outlandish next to all known precedent as to be unreal.

hmm. Some plans of building design might hold the answer to this question.
One  possible result that I can think of is if the Meridian plaza elevator  shafts were poured concreate box tower designs.Some significant load  carrying capacity in those, the only limiting factor being height.

Well shoot it holds a much better record of explenation as that which will be given for a CD based event....

So If it was up to you Q24:
- How would you go to show that this was indeed a CD event based on footage alone
Remeber  that I do not buy into the proggresive mushroom collapse of the Towers  from the top down as seen in the video's. I have seen progressive  Towerblock demo's before and the difference is profound.
- Where is that significant telltale puff from the charges going of at every collum to bring the house down
- Explosive used to knock down main collums knowing that shaped charges have a shelf live of only 3 years

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

There comes a point when a person may no longer be focusing on the merits of the argument, and simply be arguing for the sake of arguing - aquatus1

#52    NeoGenesis

NeoGenesis

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

  • Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

Posted 03 September 2010 - 07:37 PM

From earlyer posting.
The sentence was meant to say:

Remeber  that I do not buy into what is said to be   proggresive controlled demolition mushroom collapse of the Towers  from the top down as seen  in  video's. I have seen progressive  Towerblock demo's before and  the difference is profound.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

There comes a point when a person may no longer be focusing on the merits of the argument, and simply be arguing for the sake of arguing - aquatus1

#53    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:57 PM

View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

The  first variable that struck my mind here was the simple rule of thumb in  high rise construction - The more hight the lighter the construction  need to be otherwise the building would simply crubble under its own  weight.

A simple fact. Do you agree ?.
Yes – I was trying to bring a balance by arguing against the ESB/WTC comparison here.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

Now if you have 2 million plus dollars to spend on aciddent study to get difinetive variables that can tell us yes this condition will produce this specific result thus generate a accurate report about  the WTC collapse... that would be supperb.
But  then neither of us have + 2 million dollars to spend, Makes for the  arguments that we are currently engaged in rather empty in weight of  merit. We are thus looked in a continiuos loop of who's argument has the  sharpest point.

You agree?.
NIST already spent $24 million on their official WTC1&2 investigation.

The findings according to their modelling were that, using best estimates for the building properties, the witnessed impact and the fire situation, the structures should not have even begun to collapse.  This is in absolute concurrence with earlier studies carried out by the very engineers who had led the WTC building project and who had found that the structures would withstand various airliner collision and fire scenarios.

Rather than looking for another method of collapse at this point, NIST instead chose to increase every single variable in their existing modelling to its maximum possible severity – they increased the aircraft speed, weight and strength whilst decreasing the building strength, they adjusted the impact angle to cause more damage, they made the fire situation even more severe.  In making these adjustments simultaneously, NIST succeeded in making the buildings initiate collapse in their model.  The only problem being in that doing so, they had not only moved far away from the best estimates but in fact had exceeded the reality of the situation on 9/11… the visual comparison of actual impact damage shows the initial base (non-collapse) case to be the best match.

I don’t think that spending a further $2 million would change any of the above.

Still, without a definitive conclusion provided by the NIST investigation (they needed to simulate more cases to achieve this), I would say you are correct that, “We are thus locked in a continuous loop of whose argument has the sharpest point”.  It is due to the failure of NIST that we are in this position.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

They  are instantly nullefied due to the specific factors as given above  faced by the WTC  Towers thus can not be trusted for comparison.
However for my arguments deffence I would ask you to search for - Overpass collapse due to tankertruck fire - the mentioned accident happend in open air where many say that a fuel fire can not burn Hot enough to melt steel.
I provide numerous examples of severe and long-lasting high-rise building fires which in cases caused deformation of the steelwork with not one previous known case of sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete collapse and you would like to counter this with…… a bridge.

I can only refer back to your mention of “whose argument has the sharpest point”.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

In the words of one of the leading Controled Demolition companies head of operations Mark Loizeaux:

A controlled demolition is not a quiet event.

The  telltale markings and sight of a demolition by means of explosives are  extremely prominent. I take that as a engraved into the grain of stone  fact that no explosives were used.
Despite that Mark Loizeaux generally, in all of his comments, does not appear to grasp no one is talking about a conventional demolition on 9/11, he does state the obvious here that the event is not quiet.  There does exist though a mass of evidence in witness statements and video footage of very loud explosions in the WTC buildings prior to their collapse.  All that Loizeaux has proven is that he has either missed this evidence or is being wilfully ignorant of it.

The standard defence of the official conspiracy theorist to said evidence, is to claim that explosions described as “bombs” or even thought by the FBI on the day to be “secondary devices” were caused by the fires, squibs matching those seen in known demolitions are created by air pressure at the collapse fronts, a substance with no visible difference to thermite flowing from the building must be ah I don’t know… lead, aluminium, batteries… etc, etc etc.  So we see there are individual disparate excuses provided for each piece of evidence.  There is only one event that can explain the full body of evidence in one fell swoop, and that is controlled demolition.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

Uhh huh.... And the illustrious architecht ot the Titanic sad that this  ship is unsinkable and look at the end result. So the point of argument  is?. Just to win over the board to construct the building.
I’m not at all sure that the architect of the Titanic actually said that the ship was unsinkable.  At any rate, he certainly did not specify that, “the ship probably could sustain multiple impacts of icebergs”.  If you can show that he did say this, then you might have a point.  On the other hand we have the WTC construction manager who did unequivocally state that, “the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners”.  So I already have my point in place.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

Bahh what utter hogwash. Neither of us or where there walking through the burning rubble to survey the REAL damage to the building. Neither were anyone else.
It was NIST who effectively confirmed through their computer simulations that the initial impacts did little to the integrity of the structures.  Along with all of the photographic and video evidence that is available today, it would make no difference to our understanding of the damage situation if we had been present at the WTC on 9/11.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

From which side of the building?.. Are you only looking at the east side - The pritty side that made the whole mennagery look like a CD stunt?...
May not be a plane impact but a impact of falling debri from the nearest Tower and the debries that fell were not mere office chiars.
As I explained in my post #34 (you quote it below so I don’t know why you are trying to make this particular point), NIST eventually confirmed that the debris impact damage was superficial to the WTC7 collapse initiation.  Those who accept the controlled demolition had been arguing this point for years and amusingly it was official conspiracy theorists who were forced to back down when the final WTC7 report was released.

Noted you agree that the WTC7 collapse did look like a “CD stunt”.


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

Wonder what a 10 meter 500 kilogram I-beam would make of those fastening points.....Just a thought as clear as it is obvious - It will tear that fastening stubs like a velcro zipper
You are going to have to be more specific.  As in, how does the failure of one single column lead to a complete chain reation of failures across the structure that within seconds results in the entirety of this huge building entering a symmetrical, freefall, complete collapse?  It cannot be done - they are effectively claiming that this one all important column supported vital loads across the entire building - it is madness!


View PostNeoGenesis, on 03 September 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

So If it was up to you Q24:
- How would you go to show that this was indeed a CD event based on footage alone
Remeber  that I do not buy into the proggresive mushroom collapse of the Towers  from the top down as seen in the video's. I have seen progressive  Towerblock demo's before and the difference is profound.
- Where is that significant telltale puff from the charges going of at every collum to bring the house down
- Explosive used to knock down main collums knowing that shaped charges have a shelf live of only 3 years
I don’t have time to write an essay now and would like to go much further than the footage alone if I did – there is the witness testimony, the NIST investigation, precedent of building fires, etc, even the seismic data indicates that the WTC collapses were not natural failures.  Remember that the controlled demolitions of tower blocks that we see use conventional methods, unlike the necessarily more covert nature of the WTC demolitions.

Why should there be a “telltale puff” at “every column” in the WTC demolition?  As you appear to believe that no charges were necessary whatsoever, this would be a double-standard in evaluating the opposing theories.  There are however a number of visible squibs during the collapses – charges which were used to ensure that the collapses were not arrested.

I’m unsure of the relevance of your third point.  The charges required inside all three of the collapsed WTC buildings could reasonably have been placed within the month prior to 9/11.  In the type of unconventional demolition used at the WTC there would be no preparation work, no large scale drilling of columns, no detcord involved and no safety requirement thus speeding up the setup process.  Please see top of my post here for the estimate.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#54    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 September 2010 - 10:25 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 September 2010 - 07:57 PM, said:

The findings according to their modelling were that, using best estimates for the building properties, the witnessed impact and the fire situation, the structures should not have even begun to collapse.
How many times do you have to be told you are wrong on this?  I've explained it every way I can think of and you still don't get it.  Those estimates are not exact, no measurement is ever exact.  The estimates came with error bands, and a collapse was predicted within those error bands.  Furthermore, the observed damage was intermediate between the "best estimate" values which didn't cause a collapse and the more severe values which did.  In other words, the severe case which you characterise as "exceeding the reality" was no further away from reality than the best estimate was.

Edited by flyingswan, 04 September 2010 - 10:29 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#55    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 September 2010 - 11:58 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 04 September 2010 - 10:25 PM, said:

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong on this?  I've explained it every way I can think of and you still don't get it.  Those estimates are not exact, no measurement is ever exact.  The estimates came with error bands, and a collapse was predicted within those error bands.
In fact we are saying the same thing – you just choose to put a gloss on it whilst I say it how it is.  By best estimates of actual impact, structure and fire severity, NIST found that the buildings should not have collapsed.  By the most extreme estimates (plus an additional added force), NIST achieved collapse initiation in their model.  The chance of a case being close to the best estimates are very high and the chance of a case being close to the extreme estimates are very low.

There is no case for being right or wrong in understanding of the above; this is simply how it is.  I don’t care if you want to believe that the very low probability outcome happened two out of two times, I’m going with the best odds.  Further than that, by not carrying out a simulation producing a case whereby collapse initiation occurred without exceeding the actual damage seen in photograpic evidence, it is not even proven that the low probability case for collapse actually exists!

You can explain it as many ways as you like but the fact is you accept that a case with a zero to low probabiliy outcome happened… twice.  You are welcome to that but it’s not for me.


View Postflyingswan, on 04 September 2010 - 10:25 PM, said:

Furthermore, the observed damage was intermediate between the "best estimate" values which didn't cause a collapse and the more severe values which did.  In other words, the severe case which you characterise as "exceeding the reality" was no further away from reality than the best estimate was.
Your second sentence is plain incorrect I’m afraid – the best estimate did show a better match to the actual damage as seen in photographic evidence in the case of both towers.  NIST confirm this themselves for WTC1 and any close inspection of the simulated damage compared to actual damage shows the same for WTC2.  Not only was the probability of a non-collapse case exceedingly higher than for collapse but it is supported by a better match to the actual evident damage.

I’d go try to pull the wool over someone else’s eyes because your inaccuracies and the low-standards of acceptance you grant the official collapse theory won’t wash with me or any neutral on the subject.  Every time we talk all you do is show yourself to be completely biased toward your personal preferences; you are the personification of the Francis Bacon quote in your own signature and so there is little worth in discussion.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#56    susieice

susieice

    December's Child

  • Member
  • 10,821 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

  • "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice."
    .....Robert Frost

Posted 05 September 2010 - 12:07 AM

This is a link to a book I just finished reading about the survivors from the WTC. It's called 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. It details the stories of the people who managed to get out of the towers, many in the impact zone of the south tower, and the phone calls made to families from people trapped in the floors above the impact zone. The title refers to the time that elapsed between the first plane striking the north tower until the collapse of the tower. It describes in detail the difference between the Empire State Bldg and the WTC. They were built under different building codes, the WTC's much more lax with wide open floor space instead of walls and less than half the stairways for evacuation than the ESB. The stairways were also all centered in the building's core instead scattered so when the planes hit, they cut off the escape routes from the upper floors. Also far inferior fireproofing that had been shown to have fallen off the steel beams after the 1993 bombing attempt in the basement of the north tower.

It features a story from one survivor named Stanley Praimnath who was an assistant vice-president of Fuji Bank. He watched United Airlines Flight 175 come over the East River from his office window on the 81st floor of the south tower and head directly towards him. One of the few to survive from that far up the building. A few managed to escape from the 78th floor where they were standing at one of the 3 main elevator banks in the south tower, also within the impact zone. There are also stories from survivors of the 89th floor of the north tower. Also phone calls to families from people trapped on the 104th floor and so on above the impact zone just a second or so before the tower collapsed. They all said the ceiling was beginning to cave in. Not one reported an explosion.

I would recommend that anyone who wants to know what the people at the WTC really experienced read this book. It made me cry but is very well written and it's what the people who were eyewitnesses to the tragedy want us to know. What it was really like in those buildings.

http://www.nytimes.c.../09STEWART.html

These conspiracy theories should be put to rest as they are demeaning to the people who gave their lives to rescue people who were trapped in the debris of the impact zones and to the people who were trapped too far above it to be reached. As much as I detest George W, he is not guilty of hatching some mass murder plot to make a terrorist cover story for the US government to go to war with Iraq.

Edited by susieice, 05 September 2010 - 12:21 AM.

"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to sharpen."  Eden Phillpotts

Opponere draconem est prehendere vitam

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." Arthur C. Clarke

#57    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 September 2010 - 10:39 AM

View PostQ24, on 04 September 2010 - 11:58 PM, said:

In fact we are saying the same thing – you just choose to put a gloss on it whilst I say it how it is.
So your using words like "exceeding the reality" and "zero to low probability outcome" for something that is within the error margin isn't putting a gloss on?

Do you understand that the fact that the less severe case gave the worst match to actual damage for both towers automatically put the actual impact values between the "best estimate" and more severe?  If the "best estimate" matched the actual values, then the less severe and more severe cases would be equally poor matches.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#58    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 September 2010 - 12:05 PM

View Postsusieice, on 05 September 2010 - 12:07 AM, said:

These conspiracy theories should be put to rest as they are demeaning to the people who gave their lives to rescue people who were trapped in the debris of the impact zones and to the people who were trapped too far above it to be reached.
Good post susieice, I think that we should always remember those who died on 9/11 and their families.  It is upsetting to think about what those people went through; the final phone calls and people who jumped to escape the fires get to me especially.

I had to pause right there to put my mind back in logic mode.

Now, I can’t for the life of me understand why you think that discussing the method of the WTC collapses would be “demeaning” to those who lost everything on 9/11.  Can you explain your words that I quoted above any further?  It is disrespectful in my opinion not to question how those people died.

It is worth noting that Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families with approximately 7,000 members, has stated that around half of the relatives he represented believe there was a cover-up and inside complicity in the event.

Further, it was due largely to the work of four women known as the Jersey Girls, who all lost their husbands in the event, that the 9/11 Commission was formed.  This investigation was opposed by President Bush and even after the 9/11 report was released, the same women were left deeply unsatisfied in feeling that many of their questions had not been answered.

It is that your opinion is so at odds with all of the above that I question if emotions are clouding your judgement.  Please don’t think that is meant as an attack by the way; understandably this can be an emotional subject.  Just, maybe, something to think about in the links above.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#59    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 September 2010 - 12:11 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 05 September 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

So your using words like "exceeding the reality" and "zero to low probability outcome" for something that is within the error margin isn't putting a gloss on?
No because they are both factual statements.

It is “within the error margin”, so to speak, to suggest that a standard dice could roll a 6 ten times in a row but there is a very “low probability” of it happening.  When we see in the real life case we are comparing that at least one other number was actually rolled in the series then we can say that ten straight rolls of 6 were “exceeding the reality”.  This is the situation we have with the only simulated case where NIST predicted collapse would initiate.


View Postflyingswan, on 05 September 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

So your using words like "exceeding the reality" and "zero to low probability outcome" for something that is within the error margin isn't putting a gloss on?

Do you understand that the fact that the less severe case gave the worst match to actual damage for both towers automatically put the actual impact values between the "best estimate" and more severe?  If the "best estimate" matched the actual values, then the less severe and more severe cases would be equally poor matches.
You ask if I understand the separate cases when it was me who had to explain them to you in the first place.  There was a time when you swore blind that NIST used the best estimate case in their “probable collapse sequence”.  I had to spell out the fundamental facts and quote from the study numerous times before you were forced to admit I “may well be right” that the extreme estimates were used.  Now you forget all that and question my understanding – it’s laughable.

We have been over it all before and I’d prefer not to rehash the same old discussion with you.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#60    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 September 2010 - 01:37 PM

View PostQ24, on 05 September 2010 - 12:11 PM, said:

It is “within the error margin”, so to speak, to suggest that a standard dice could roll a 6 ten times in a row but there is a very “low probability” of it happening. When we see in the real life case we are comparing that at least one other number was actually rolled in the series then we can say that ten straight rolls of 6 were “exceeding the reality”. This is the situation we have with the only simulated case where NIST predicted collapse would initiate.
There you go again, putting a gloss on it by exaggerating the probabilities.  You still seem to think that a quoted error margin is an absolute limit, never to be exceeded.  These margins represent probabilities, and the probability that they can be exceeded is fairly high.  In fact, I've already given you an example where two different measurements of the same parameter could be outside each others error margin.  In case you've forgotten, the NIST impact speed estimate for WTC2 was 542 mph with +/- 24 mph error band, but the best estimate from one of the videos used to derive this speed was 573 mph.  If this video had been the only one available NIST's best estimate speed would have been higher than their actual severe case speed of 566 mph.  

Quote

We have been over it all before and I’d prefer not to rehash the same old discussion with you.
Ditto, I wont mention it again unless you do.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users