1999 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

Read on.

Nothing what you posted there refutes what the people at GZ said they heard I'm afraid.

Are you going to tell us all how many buildings Brent Blanchard as demolished to earn the title of being one of the countries top demoltion experts!

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

DIdn't you know Wandering??

You can only tell for sure if it was an explosion that the people at GZ heard, only if they have previous EXPERIENCE of an explosion.

But you can be an expert on demolitions, without ANY EXPERIENCE of demolishing buildings!!

Debunking logic 101!!

And, there were those who reported hearing explosions and later admitted that what they heard were falling elevators.

Read on.
Researchers from Columbia University were recording seismic activity in Manhattan at the time. They recorded tremors caused by the falling buildings, but no prior signals expected of detonations were observed. These recordings are publicly available online. Also, explosive demolitions leave all sorts of telltale signs that were not found in the ground zero rubble, according to demolition expert Bill Moore, former president of the National Demolition Association.

Quote

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

How amusing when I have already posted where Brent Blanchard, his company have been called upon by other demoltion companies around the world because of his demolition expertise.

But you have not shown me or the lurkers how many buildings Brent Blanchard as demolished to earn the title of being one of the countries top demoltion experts??

I've only been asking for numerous pages but you keep dodging and ignoring it??

|Why?? Is it because as I've always maintained, the answer is ZERO but you can't bear to bring yourself to say it??

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

And, there were those who reported hearing explosions and later admitted that what they heard were falling elevators.

Read on.
Researchers from Columbia University were recording seismic activity in Manhattan at the time. They recorded tremors caused by the falling buildings, but no prior signals expected of detonations were observed. These recordings are publicly available online. Also, explosive demolitions leave all sorts of telltale signs that were not found in the ground zero rubble, according to demolition expert Bill Moore, former president of the National Demolition Association.

And there was those who reported explosions and never changed their accounts or were not near an elevator shaft!

[Stundie]

Wandering, on 02 May 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

hmf I don't like this new UM I was editing my original post but I've ended up with 3 new posts? o.O

I'm not keen on it either! Its doing some strange things.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

But you have not shown me or the lurkers how many buildings Brent Blanchard as demolished to earn the title of being one of the countries top demoltion experts??

That is moot by the fact that demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard and his company for his demolition expertise. Since he also produces a publication on demolitions shows that he is highly qualified in the demolition process.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

That is moot by the fact that demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard and his company for his demolition expertise.

Its not a moot point at all.

How many demolitions Skyeagle??

If he has done ZERO demolitions, how can he be one of the top demoltion experts in the country.

If I go and watch and monitor lots of football matches, does that make an expert footballer....or an expert manager!

Or better still, one of the top footballing player experts in the country?

skyeagle409, on 03 May 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

Since he also produces a publication on demolitions shows that he is highly qualified in the demolition process.

So if I produce publications on computer games, does that show I am highly qualified in the game making process??

Edited by Stundie, 03 May 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

And there was those who reported explosions and never changed their accounts or were not near an elevator shaft!

Just because they thought they heard explosions doesn't make it so.

Read on

Quote

The story...WTC testimony about bombs and explosions shows explosives brought down the towers.

Does it? People use these words for many reasons, not always literally. Or accurately. And it may not be clear which is which. Take these accounts, for instance. Do the witnesses really believe they heard a bomb, or just a loud noise that was “like” a bomb?

...laying on the floor when a, about two and a half foot diamter and about forty-five feet long tree crashed into the house, and it sounded like a bomb went off

[Hurricane Rita survivor]

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=4863132
--------------------------------------------------------------

about 1:30 a.m., Jolanta Haney , 57, awoke to a loud crash when a pecan tree crashed through her bedroom ceiling.

"It sounded like a bomb," the Uptown resident said. "The whole house was shaking. I was thinking, 'God save us.' "

http://www.ohsep.lou...ithoutpower.htm [broken]

--------------------------------------------------------------

Several callers to The Straits Times said they heard an explosion, while others reported blackouts. Though some eyewitnesses said they saw flames flash across Nicoll Highway, the LTA said it had no evidence of an explosion
------------------------------------------------------------

When leaking gas was detected, Power Gas shut off the supply to the severed pipe, said Mr Rajan Krishnan, LTA’s director of projects, at a news conference last night. The loud sound of the collapsing wall ‘might have sounded like an explosion’, he said.
http://www.911myths...._literally.html

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 May 2012 - 12:52 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

But you have not shown me or the lurkers how many buildings Brent Blanchard as demolished to earn the title of being one of the countries top demoltion experts??

It has already been shown that Brent Blanhard is a demolition expert.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 May 2012 - 12:36 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 03 May 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Its not a moot point at all.

If he has done ZERO demolitions, how can he be one of the top demoltion experts in the country.

Research the background of Brent Blanchard and you will see why he is one of the top demolition expert in the world.

Quote

Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

http://www.zoominfo....argetid=profile

It takes a demolition expert to write from such a position that relates to the explosive demolition industry. In case you want to know more about Brent Blanchard's company, go here.

http://www.protecser...om/Services.php

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 May 2012 - 12:55 AM.

[RaptorBites]

Wandering and Stundie.

Do you refute that the industry calls Blanchard an expert?  Remember the industry is the one that qualified him as an expert in Controlled Demolitions.  So you mean to tell me that the industry of controlled demolitions as a whole think that this man has no clue what he is talking about?

As far as the sounds of explosions and the eye witnesses, you both agree that other things may have cause the sound of explosions and there could be a possibility that the witnesses were mistaken. Yes?

Just because you find it unrealisitc that so many people may be wrong about the description of what they heard does not discount the fact that the sounds they heard may be something other than demolitions.

[booNyzarC]

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

That fires brought down the WTC 7 and that in every other case where fire has engulfed a building, it still stands. Even when the fire damage parts of it may have collapsed, the rest of undamaged structure survives.

So this is what you think my case is?  Actually, I don't really have a case.  I have opinions based on the evidence which I've reviewed, but I wouldn't classify it as my case.

The best supported hypothesis I've seen for the collapse of WTC 7 is the one provided by NIST.  I am open to hearing about better hypotheses if there are any and if the presenter(s) of those hypotheses can adequately substantiate them.

I'm similarly open to alternate valid hypotheses for the collapse initiation of WTC 1 and 2.  I'm not dead set on NIST's collapse model for WTC 1 and 2, although they do present a very strongly supported and plausible case for the bowing.

Take F. R. Greening for example.  He has given a very compelling case describing how the impacts of the planes alone would have been sufficient for causing the collapse initiation.  If you haven't already, you may want to read his WTC Report and the Energy Transfer Addendum.

Source page in case either of those don't work.


And which portions of the evidence do you think I've ignored?  What makes you think I've ignored them?

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Sorry you think it's a waste of time but I think its important to point out the obvious difference here.

I didn't say it was a waste of time.  I said the bulk of your arguments with skyeagle was a waste of space.  For it to be a waste of time, or more specifically my time, I'd have to actually read all of your back and forth exchanges with skyeagle.  I rarely do.  My eyes rapidly gloss over because you're both going back and forth with the same stuff over and over again.  "Yes it can!" "No it can't!" "Yes they did!" "No they didn't" "This means that!" "No that means this!" "That guy says so!" "This guy says otherwise!"  blah blah blah.  It adds scrolling time, but not much more.

I do occasionally read some of them, and every once in a while I find that you've posted something good, so kudos to you both for those occasions.  I probably miss some good stuff as a result of skipping over many of your arguments, but I rarely find the effort to be of much value.  Sorry for the bluntness of that, I intend no offense.  And if you are both entertained by this endless exercise in repeatedly regurgitated futility, by all means continue to your hearts' content.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

In all of the videos posted which show a collapse from the fires, none of the building have collapsed to the ground entirely. The video you posted states that after the collapse and they put the fires out, they were able to enter the building.

You see, with the exception of the WTC 1, 2 and especially 7, this was the first time that fires have brought down high rise steel structures in their entirety. They didn't partially collapse like every other example where a collapse occurs.

I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're saying, but I don't see this as a very meaningful argument.  Fires can cause structural failures.  Building elements previously held up by those failed structures will collapse when the supporting elements fail.  The examples you've seen prove this to be true.  The only argument that you have appears to be regarding the magnitude and historically uncommon frequency of collapses to compare with those on 911.

I don't fault you for that argument by the way.  It isn't a very meaningful argument, but I understand your perspective in the argument.

However, that being said, global collapse from fire is a completely logical, plausible, and understandable eventuality if the failures involved impact primary core structural elements in the building; as was the case for WTC 7.

No matter how unlikely you may think this to be, surely you must agree that it is at least possible.  Right?  You seem to maybe indicate as much in the next part of your post, but I'm not sure if I'm convinced yet that you actually do...

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I do not doubt that fires are capable of bringing down a building but especially in the case of WTC7, I do not think the fires or even the impact damage which the NIST say themselves was not a contributing factor was capable of bring down that tower.

Of course, it's my opinion, I wasn't there, I'm not a scientist. But when others suggest my opinion are in essence, ludicrous or silly paranoia or twoofie or whatever, they are based on previous evidence of other building fires which have never collapse the entire structure, the obvious flaws of the NIST report, the fact it has been pointed out by numerous structural engineers and architects.

You say here that "you do not doubt that fires are capable of bringing down a building" but I must ask if you are sure about that;  Are you?

I only ask because you seem to have been representing the opinion that fires cannot bring down steel buildings.  Have I misunderstood some of your prior statements about this?

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

If anyone who supports the official story can explain how a fire which is relatively small and located in a few areas of the building, causes it to lose its entire structural support that enable it to collapse at free fall speed, straight down into it's footprint. Then I am all ears!!

Saying read the NIST report doesn't address the obvious problems, I and many other have with it.

I think it is possible that you may have a few misconceptions about certain aspects of this whole thing.

Footprint...  When large buildings fall, they don't have anywhere to do so except within their own footprint.  When buildings as large as the WTC buildings begin to collapse, the collapsing portions are so incredibly massive that they exert a mind bogglingly large amount of force (Force is equal to mass times acceleration).  And when that falling element impacts with the next stationary portion, the momentum at the time of impact is virtually impossible to divert or arrest (momentum equals mass times velocity at the time of impact).  In order for large buildings to not fall within their own footprints, the entire falling mass must be stopped altogether or pushed off to the side by some kind of superior resistant force.  These non-reinforced steel structures simply didn't have the capacity to deliver that kind of resistance.  Claiming that this "footprint" aspect of the collapse is somehow uncommon is rather unimpressive and simply incorrect.

Free fall...  WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall at freefall speeds, period.  The north face of WTC 7 did appear to fall at near freefall for a short period of time, and the northwest corner actually appeared to descend at speeds greater than freefall for a short period of time.  This isn't indicative of demolition.  This is indicative of the north facade being literally pulled downward by some additional force other than just gravity.  This additional force was most likely the momentum of collapsing internal structures that were still attached to the facade.

Fires...  What makes you think that the fires were relatively small?  Granted, the entire building wasn't fully engulfed with flames shooting out all of the windows, but does that really mean that the fires were relatively small?  The building was burning unchecked for over 7 hours.  The best anyone looking at the footage and photographs taken at different points during those 7 hours prior to collapse can say is that it is difficult to determine the magnitude of the fires because views were often obstructed by smoke and debris.  But rescue workers who were on the site give us first hand accounts that seem to indicate the fires were not relatively small.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

And I think you will find more often than not I quote everybody in their entirety.

If you are in doubt, then look at my responses to Skyeagle or anyone else for that matter including my previous responses to you, much more often than not, I quote and respond to everything posted.

I only quoted your video to highlight a contradiction in what constitutes as evidence because to be honest, I didn't have much of a problem with anything else you said.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "tediously nitpicking each individual piece out of context."  This has nothing to do with whether you quote someone in their entirety.  It has to do with your treatment and application of those quotations.  Take this latest exchange of ours as an example.  You broke apart two paragraphs from my post #1315 into individual sentences and responded to each sentence instead of addressing the overall concepts that I was conveying in the original two paragraphs as a whole.  Those concepts were:

• Fire has induced collapses before and after 911.
  
• The differences between those collapses and the WTC 7 collapse are attributable to the degree that the fires were combated, the overall construction differences between the buildings, and the actual structural elements which initially failed.
  
• Modeling something as intricate as the WTC 7 collapse with perfect detail is difficult to say the least.

In order to recombine the portions of my paragraphs which were related I had to group your responses.  That was tedious, and as our line of discussion has continued it has become even more tedious.

From those two paragraphs illustrating those three points, my conversation with you is now threatening to grow into a full blown discussion of nearly every aspect of the disaster in NY, once again broken down into out of context responses to individual sentences or small groupings of sentences.  In order to fully respond to each additional point you have raised it is taking hours of my time to break your response down into digestible but relevant chunks, recombine the related sections, source my responses, and tailor it all thoughtfully along the tangential lines you've taken.  If I don't expend the effort to do so, I guess I risk the appearance of ignoring those points.

That is tedious.  Extremely tedious.

All spawned from two paragraphs illustrating three points.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

And again, this is what happens to people who support the official story...

The NIST said that Column 79 buckled and failed and that this caused the collapse and it was NOT a core structural element. It provided support to the floor spans along floor 13.  

So you have just said yourself above "The portion of this building which succumbed to fire was NOT a core structural element for the entire building" yet you are now ignoring the official report and creating your own theory which isn't based on any evidence other than there were fires, to continue with the belief, irregardless of whether it's true or not.

So why did WTC7 collapse, when the fires didn't succumb to the core structural element??

I'm not ignoring NIST.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.



Diagram 1-Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures.

Archived Source
Newer Source

To illustrate the point...



If the first green domino is what failed due to fire and the final red domino is a core structural element, was not the core structural element collapse fire induced?  Yes.  It was.


But let's suppose that I do have an opinion or propose a possible alternate explanation that does differ in some way from one or more details in the NIST report.  Saying that this means I'm "ignoring the official report" is a ridiculous accusation.  All it means is that I'm open to exploring the presented evidence and entertaining alternate points of view.  I would consider that to be a good thing.

When you position yourself as you often do, as a proverbial combatant in a verbal war, and your arguments are accompanied by a sometimes overwhelming volume of snide and obnoxious insults, it is very difficult to have a mutually beneficial and open conversation.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

And what were those explosions??

There were loud bangs.  Witnesses hearing those loud bangs described them as sounding like explosions, as would be a natural descriptive to use for any kind of loud bang.  That does not mean that they were actually explosions and it does not mean that the sources of those loud bangs were demolition charges.  Considering how far apart most of these reported loud bangs were (throughout the day), it is extremely unlikely that they were caused by demolition charges.  They were probably caused by more than one kind of thing.  I don't have an answer for what caused each and every loud bang any more than you do.  Could some of them have been some kind of demolition charges and/or "secondary devices?"  Sure, I suppose it is possible, but the building collapses certainly didn't require any kind of demolition charges; and I guess that is the real point here isn't it?

I've had this "explosions" conversation with you before.  Were you dissatisfied with the results of our previous conversation regarding these loud bangs?

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

The reason why the fires didn't collapse the entire building is quite simple, there is a much higher percentage of the building which remains undamaged and more than capable of holding up everything above the failure point, which it was doing anyway before the fires.

So why was WTC 7 different? There was much more of the building not on fire than was, in fact the fires were relatively small in comparisons to the size of the building and lots of the fire had burned out according to the NIST.

WTC 7 was different because...  WTC 7 was different.  Is it really that hard to see how obvious and simple this is?

I've already described why above.  Rather than repeat it again, please just read that section again.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Agreement is always good and always helps the debate/conversation move along.
It wouldn't just benefit the NIST, it would benefit everyone and anyone who wanted to analyse the collapse whether that is to improve structural designs, study material integrity and many many more scientific reasons that my non scientific brain can't think of.

Again, I don't disagree with the potential benefits that could be had by NIST releasing the models.  I wasn't saying that it would benefit NIST.  Maybe it would be more clear if I added clarifications?  I was saying that it would be of benefit (in general) for NIST to (take the action to freely) release the computer models they (had) produced.

They are apparently willing to release them under FOIA, but they also apparently charge for processing the request(s).  Here's the link so that you can knock yourself out.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Conspiracy theorist couldn't do such a thing if the NIST released their data and it was valid. The only people able to understand their data would be the people with the experience and knowledge whether they be conspiracy theorists or not.

The reasons the NIST give as far as I remember is for security reasons that terrorists could use it which I find a little bit of an odd reason considering the building no longer exists.

Not true.  Conspiracy theorists have done such a thing already.  Many times.  Occasionally it is simply a misunderstanding, but often enough it is more than just that.  One example is some people's claim that NIST doesn't support any kind of pancake collapse and they attempt to support that claim by misquoting a section of one of NIST's FAQs.  Another example is when some people show images from NIST's WTC 7 computer model claiming that it doesn't match the actual collapse, only they are showing the model which didn't include any of the impact damage...  Then there are others who accuse NIST of being downright criminal because NIST didn't exactly duplicate every aspect of the collapses within their models, but the conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore the fact that NIST had a very specific mandate and that they achieved the goals of their mandate well within the expectations of industry standards.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

There are genuine problems with the NIST report. Saying it is the misrepresentation of conspiracy theorists is totally unfounded when you have people such as the NIST former Fire Chief who is not a conspiracy theorist as far as I'm aware, calling for an independent review because he thinks the conclusions that the NIST arrive at are questionable.

Well considering we can't see their model, how is it possible to gauge how accurate their model is??

Lets say I claim something ridiculous, lets say I can punch the top of a 200 storey building and make it collapsed, I could build a model which shows how it is possible that I can punch the top of a 200 storey building and make it collapse. Would you believe me?

Of course not. I couldn't repeat it because there are no 200 storey buildings that I am aware of to demonstrate, so we look at my model but I won't release the data. Do you just trust me and my data?

When scientists or experts or even respectable institutions make a claim about something, they release to the data so that others can check and reproduce the results, it's what separates real science from junk. I'm not a scientist but even my dumb backsides understand this and why it's done.

So if the NIST won't release their data, you and others can have as much faith that an a institute as the NIST wouldn't fudge or have poor data as much as you like, but without their data, they have junk.

I haven't forgot and you said it yourself...."to determine probable failure mechanisms"...The word "probable" doesn't mean that is what definitely happened. So why do debunkers have such objects to other alternatives??

And how can the NIST "identify areas of future investigation that could lead to practical measures for improving the damage resistance of buildings against such unforseen events" when they won't release their data.

I could build a computer model, but I do not have the expertise to create such complex model.

And as for your claim that data is included in the reports, there is some data in their but not all the data.

In the case of the WTC 1 & 2, they used their data in the fire analysis which didn't make their model collapse, so they increased the input values until the model collapsed. That is not scientific, it's fudging the numbers to the desired outcome.

I've never claimed that the NIST reports were perfect.  Many people have raised valid criticisms for certain parts of the reports.  I'm not opposed to additional analyses of their data and improved modeling techniques.  I'm not opposed to it at all.  I don't personally think it is necessary because in my opinion they've already identified the root cause of collapse in WTC 7 even if their models don't re-create every single detail of the actual collapse, but I'm certainly not opposed to people looking at it and producing better models.

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I think they considered the supposed collapse/bulge of the south face as well as the diesel tanks.

I wasn't talking about the bulge or diesel tanks, I was talking about the localized collapse which happened long before global collapse.  Perhaps you can remember the picture I posted of this?.  Can you show me where they addressed the localized collapse in the center of the south face?  This one here:

Stundie, on 01 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

They didn't fight it because according to the news reporter, they couldn't get near the building cause of the explosions and falling debris.

So what is causing the explosions and falling debris?? The NIST failed to mention this in their reports.

I'm not saying they were definitely explosives, what I have been saying is that there is a possibility there were explosives because the people at GZ seem to think so too.

Now it could be elevator shafts falling, diesel tanks exploding, cranes snapping or any other thing that sounds like an explosive...but it could ALSO be explosives.

Until the source is found for these explosions, then explosives will have to remain as a possibility, irregardless if others think that that the hundreds of people at GZ can't tell or don't have previous knowledge of explosives.

Cheers

Stundie

It's funny to me that you rely on the accuracy of a news reporter here and yet in other areas I've seen you criticize the accuracy of news reporters (i.e. the reporter who mistakenly reported that WTC 7 had already collapsed while the building was still standing because she was either receiving bad information or misinterpreting the information received).  Does this not seem ironic to some degree?

The fire fighters were kept back from combating the fires for safety reasons, it really is as simple as that.  Why was debris falling?  Well, because the building was on fire and had suffered impact damage which had already resulted in localized collapses along the southwest corner and in the center of the south face at the very least.  There could have been other collapse regions which we are unable to see, both internal and external.

I've already discussed the "explosions" above, but it sounds to me like you might be trying to suggest that explosions were causing the falling debris.  I suppose this is possible, but if that is the case don't you find demolition charges to be an extremely unlikely source for those explosions?  I mean honestly...  who lets a building burn for 7 hours and randomly sets off demolition charges at irregular intervals before finally pulling the last switch at around 5:20 PM?  How can you even momentarily entertain such a ridiculous idea?

Plus, I just went back and watched that archived broadcast you suggested was supportive of demolitions.  Here is the section of your post #1318 suggesting where to go:

Stundie, on 30 April 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

If they can get to the building to fight the fire without being held back by explosions and falling debris[/background][/color]
I can't see how the damage stop them from doing it unless of course, there was a reason why.....

Listen to the reporter telling the anchor that the firefitghters have suspended their operation because they hear explosions followed by falling debris and that firefighters can't get close to the building because of falling debris. Goto the 18 minute mark![/size][/font]

Here is a partial transcript of that portion of the broadcast which appears to have taken place sometime around 3:20 PM (two hours before the collapse...)

Judy: CNN producer Rose Arsie on the streets of New York, she's joining us by telephone...  Rose, can you hear me?

Rose: Yes I can Judy.

Judy: What are you seeing?  Tell us where you are.

Rose: I am about two blocks north of where the World Trade Center used to be standing, and I am surrounded by firefighters who are just watching helplessly.  They've had to suspend their rescue operation and they're just watching a burning hulk of building right now.  The front part of the World Trade Center has completely sheered off as well as many of the upper floors.  And every few minutes you'll hear it like a small sort of rumbling sound, almost like an explosion sound, and another chunk of it will come flying down into the street creating a situation where rescue personnel just have not been able to get close to this building now for over an hour.

Judy: Rose, how close are they to the building?

Rose: I'd say the closest people are probably about two blocks north of there, just in front of where I am.  I spoke to a firefighter a few minutes ago that said that he had to stand there and watch helplessly as at least a dozen people leapt from the upper floors of this building during a fire.

Are you sure they are even talking about WTC 7?  People jumped from the upper floors of WTC 7?  The entire face of the building was sheered off as well as many of the upper floors?  I don't think they are talking about building 7.  And if they weren't talking about building 7, what were the "explosions" that she was describing?  Why didn't whatever building she is talking about get supposedly demolished as well?

Tedious.


Now then...  considering how much time it took me to respond to this I have no intention of continuing to respond to additional nit picking from you.  If you'd like to move ahead with the original three points I was making with my original two paragraphs, I'll be happy to respond to those.  Perhaps later and in another line of discussion I'll be willing to further flesh out the additional points which have now been introduced, but I'm not going to do it now.  So if you decide to nit pick this response down into individual sentences, feel free, but don't expect a substantial conversation to come from it.

Cheers.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 29 April 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

Steering this back to the original thread...


Your logic doesn't fit. If the descending mass largely avoids the most resistant portions of the lower structure, it has a more dramatic effect on the less resistant portions. This does not lead to cessation of collapse, it leads to continuation of collapse at a higher rate of speed.

It is not reality, but it is conservative. Avoiding the strongest elements and taking out everything else is more detrimental to the tower survival.

Of course, if you have a better model to present for all of us, I'm willing to look at it.

I'm going to have to leave this part of the discussion because it is clear you are unable or unwilling to understand two fundamental points: -

1.  It is the primary structure (most resistant portions) that are most vital in holding the building upright. The support and secondary structure (less resistant portions) were not equally vital in holding the building upright.

Your flaw above is in going to the extreme that, "the descending mass largely avoids the most resistant portions". All members were impacted and it is simple as this: the energy required to crush the lower block, and damage sustained to the upper block, is greater in accounting for all of the secondary, support and primary structure, than only the primary structure alone.

The WTC1 'spire' shows that the primary structural members can provide significant resistance after the secondary and support structure is removed. The secondary and support structure cannot provide any resistance after the primary structure is removed.

It is therefore both conservative and realistic to apply impact forces across the whole structure, not channel that entire force into cross-section of the columns as per Bazant's theory.

Remember, it is not about halting the upper block outright - that cannot be done given the initial false assumption of a freefall drop through one storey. It is about damaging the upper block to a point that it can no longer act as a rigid body delivering its force all in one instant as per Bazant's theory. Which leads to the second point you fail to understand...

2.  A mass of debris and even large broken sections is not the same as a rigid block. I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding this as it is plainly stated in Bazant's paper.

When the calculations are adapted to assume the freefall of only say, a 6 storey upper block, the result does show that collapse would still progress. But then Bazant explains this is not truly the case because, "it could be so flexible that different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times, producing a series of small impacts that would not be fatal."

This is why Bazant goes to such length to promote how the upper block crushes the lower whilst suffering negligent damage to itself - the theory needs that upper block to remain whole/rigid throughout the crush down otherwise he admits his calculation cannot be applied.

Whilst you have stated the upper block is damaged at approximately equal rate to the lower (in contradiction of Bazant) you now come up with this inexplicable argument that a mass of debris moving down together is essentially the same as a rigid block.

booNyzarC, on 29 April 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

No it isn't.


No I don't.

Well that is a childish answer.

The visible portion of the WTC1 antena ends up rotating on some pivot outside of the tower footprint, approximately 100 metres from its starting centre line. The continued rotation of the upper block I have suggested, is an obvious explanation which fits ideally how the antena performed that movement and reached the location.

If you refuse to explain, 1) why that answer does not fit or 2) what other explanation there is, then you have no argument.

The further footage in your link appears to show the tip of the antena had broken off and the visible portion I have indicated is between the red lines: -



I ask again in the hope of a reasoned response, how did it pivot and end in the location seen if not for rotation of the upper block? You need to describe how that can occur with no further rotation of the upper block after the initial tilt.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 03 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I'm going to have to leave this part of the discussion because it is clear you are unable or unwilling to understand two fundamental points: -

I am either unwilling or unable to understand these points?  No, I'm afraid that is incorrect.  I am fairly confident that I understand what you seem to think they implicate, but I don't agree with you.  There is a difference there.

The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I don't understand.

But let's take a look at these supposedly fundamental points.

Q24, on 03 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

1.  It is the primary structure (most resistant portions) that are most vital in holding the building upright. The support and secondary structure (less resistant portions) were not equally vital in holding the building upright.

Your flaw above is in going to the extreme that, "the descending mass largely avoids the most resistant portions". All members were impacted and it is simple as this: the energy required to crush the lower block, and damage sustained to the upper block, is greater in accounting for all of the secondary, support and primary structure, than only the primary structure alone.

The WTC1 'spire' shows that the primary structural members can provide significant resistance after the secondary and support structure is removed. The secondary and support structure cannot provide any resistance after the primary structure is removed.

It is therefore both conservative and realistic to apply impact forces across the whole structure, not channel that entire force into cross-section of the columns as per Bazant's theory.

Remember, it is not about halting the upper block outright - that cannot be done given the initial false assumption of a freefall drop through one storey. It is about damaging the upper block to a point that it can no longer act as a rigid body delivering its force all in one instant as per Bazant's theory. Which leads to the second point you fail to understand...

This first supposedly fundamental point is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  If you destroy the supporting structure, the building falls.  If you destroy the non-supporting structure, the building falls.  In both scenarios the building falls.  In the second scenario, you have core structural elements (the spire) still hanging around for a while after the rest of the building has fallen.

Q24, on 03 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

2.  A mass of debris and even large broken sections is not the same as a rigid block. I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding this as it is plainly stated in Bazant's paper.

When the calculations are adapted to assume the freefall of only say, a 6 storey upper block, the result does show that collapse would still progress. But then Bazant explains this is not truly the case because, "it could be so flexible that different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times, producing a series of small impacts that would not be fatal."

This is why Bazant goes to such length to promote how the upper block crushes the lower whilst suffering negligent damage to itself - the theory needs that upper block to remain whole/rigid throughout the crush down otherwise he admits his calculation cannot be applied.

Whilst you have stated the upper block is damaged at approximately equal rate to the lower (in contradiction of Bazant) you now come up with this inexplicable argument that a mass of debris moving down together is essentially the same as a rigid block.

We aren't talking about the fall of a "6 storey upper block" and neither did Bazant.  The section that you are referring to in the Addendum of his 405 paper compares the ratio between the horizontal and vertical dimensions in a hypothetically smaller upper block, and the example he gives is 3 stories, not 6.  So you've doubled his hypothetical number...

Plus, this was only the second bullet out of two.  Did you read and understand the first bullet?

In the first bullet he is discussing the design load capacity of the structural members as you approach the upper stories of the building.  Unless I'm misunderstanding him, he is basically saying that the closer you get to the roof, the structural members reach a point where the ratio between their resistance capacity and the actual static loads they bear become increasingly disparate due to the fact that the structural members have an essentially minimum capacity inbuilt; i.e. the structural members in the upper most 3 floors are fabricated in such a way that they could support just as much mass as the structural members in x number of floors below but are bearing much less mass than x number of floors below.


This second supposedly fundamental point of yours is equally irrelevant because the upper block in the north tower was, at a bear minimum, 12 stories deep (plus the roof and the antenna).

Q24, on 03 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Well that is a childish answer.

The visible portion of the WTC1 antena ends up rotating on some pivot outside of the tower footprint, approximately 100 metres from its starting centre line. The continued rotation of the upper block I have suggested, is an obvious explanation which fits ideally how the antena performed that movement and reached the location.

If you refuse to explain, 1) why that answer does not fit or 2) what other explanation there is, then you have no argument.

The further footage in your link appears to show the tip of the antena had broken off and the visible portion I have indicated is between the red lines: -



I ask again in the hope of a reasoned response, how did it pivot and end in the location seen if not for rotation of the upper block? You need to describe how that can occur with no further rotation of the upper block after the initial tilt.

Are you joking?

Obviously the antenna broke and a chunk of it fell outside the building footprint.  There are a lot of ways this can happen.  You think that the entire roof needs to fully rotate in order for that to occur?  You can't envision it breaking loose from its moorings impacting with the roof as it falls, breaking into multiple pieces, and having a chunk of it bounce outward in the direction of the initial tilt?

Face it Q24, your claim that the antenna was still attached to a fully rotated roofline has been squashed.  Give it up already dude.

[Wandering]

Stundie, on 03 May 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Its not a moot point at all.

How many demolitions Skyeagle??

If he has done ZERO demolitions, how can he be one of the top demoltion experts in the country.

If I go and watch and monitor lots of football matches, does that make an expert footballer....or an expert manager!

Or better still, one of the top footballing player experts in the country?
So if I produce publications on computer games, does that show I am highly qualified in the game making process??

Stop talking you're making me question things I've never questioned before! It's moot ok! just shut up! It's moot! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I flee in terror)

  

   *phew. here I am safe with my blindfold back on*



I watch alot of UFC and often record it, I even write a blog about it so therefore I am an expert MMA Cage fighter. Who wants to go?! Rarrrrgh!

Edited by Wandering, 03 May 2012 - 03:17 PM.