Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

Thankfully, we now live in a world of computer simulations - where pigs can fly, chipmunks can speak fluent Russian, and massive steel columns offer as much resistance as balsa wood.

As you have no engineering expertise whatever, I obviously have to explain to you (again) that there is a difference between film industry CGI and an engineering computer simulation. The difference is that the latter incorporates the physics of real-world behaviour. That is why computer simulations are used for pretty well all engineering designs these days. If you don't trust the methods used by NIST, better not enter any new buildings, because they were designed with the same methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thanks for the link to Roberts' site again - I might have had trouble finding it the other 84 times you posted it.

Now, now. Just the second time.

No, Roberts appears to have deliberately fabricated a quote which Rodriguez never said.

No, he uses a paraphrase to link to the actual quote.

You don't? Let's compare them. First, his actual quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

Now, the quote Roberts made up...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Roberts' makes up a significantly different "claim" - that Rodriguez denies bombs were in the building.

It sure as hell does alter the meaning.

If Rodriguez says he doesn't talk about bombs, it hardly matters where the bombs he doesn't talk about were supposed to be.

As he in fact does talk about bombs (in the buildings, as it happens), he contradicts himself.

Ah, yes, a truly honorable man, your Mr. Roberts is.

He makes up quotes and uses them to slander and smear Rodriguez. He's a lying, deceiving weasel.

You made up a quote to slander and smear NASA, but Czero101 has beaten me to the pot, kettle comment.

No, you're hardly in a position to take me on with this old claptrap, bub.

But if you'd like to try, be my guest.

Just don't have some kind of emotional breakdown when you finally realize you can't win what you started. Like someone else did after trying to smear me with it last month.

I think that the link I gave was enough evidence in itself - you made up a quote (post #397), repeated it (post #406), then under questioning (post #407) had to admit fabricating it (post #408). You then claimed it was a joke, but still got a mods warning for lying (post # 410). Since then, I've found no problem in treating all your posts as jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I be arguing that “if you actually studied the collapses you’re automatically biased in favour of the government”, when I have previously linked to 300+ construction professionals who, having studied the collapses, completely disagree with the official version? I gave the definition of “independent” as when I say…

“There are in fact more independent construction professionals who have spoken out against the ‘official’ story than are in favour of it.”

… or ask you to…

“provide your list of independent construction professionals who support the official fairytale”

… you for some reason continue referring to the NIST team. You do know NIST are an agency of the US Government and as such cannot be seen to be speaking out against that government, don’t you? At least that is policy of the British civil service and I am sure it is similar for the US: -

“Also, under regulations first adopted in 1954 and revised in 1984, members of the Senior Civil Service (the top management grades) are barred from holding office in a political party or
publicly expressing controversial political viewpoints
, while less senior civil servants at an intermediate (managerial) level must generally seek permission to participate in political activities. The most junior civil servants are permitted to participate in political activities, but must be politically neutral in the exercise of their duties.”

I would certainly consider implying that the WTC buildings were destroyed by anything other than airliners and/or fire is an extremely controversial political viewpoint. What value NIST’s ‘conclusion’ when it is preconceived and politically determined?

So come on, where are the “hundreds of thousands” of independent construction professionals who support the ‘official’ story, or at least 300+ rivalling the number of those who oppose it?

I've covered most of this is my recent replies to turbonium.

You still seem to be missing the point that a lot of the names on the NIST report are from non-government organisations, not NIST staff.

My own assertion is that selective placement alone, whatever the charge type, is sufficient for concealment of the controlled demolition providing that WTC security and/or maintenance was overviewed by the ‘correct’ people. I still though support the idea that it may have been possible for linear shaped cutting charges to be concealed beneath the fireproofing.

Your proposed charges are enormous, hiding them is implausible, and you have produced no evidence for your claim that maintenance staff were kept out of any areas.

It could not be predicted that the whole structures were about to enter into total and immediate near freefall collapses; the initial collapse movement was sudden. The minor bowing to the Towers’ perimeters does not indicate that ‘global’ collapse is about to ensue and in previous cases where partial collapse has occurred, this has been preceded by severe distortion of the entire collapse area.

Bowing is an indication of incipient structural failure, and it occured several minutes before the collapse. The failures, on that basis, were not sudden.

As there is precedent for high-rise steel framed building controlled demolitions exhibiting sudden initiation, virtual symmetry, near freefall and complete collapses, yet no precedent for any other method causing these features, it appears more like your ‘natural’ collapse can look like whatever you want it to.

Where is the precedent for an occupied building being prepped for CD? Where is the precedent for a CD setup surviving impact damage and fire? Where is the precedent for a CD leaving no physical clues?

The features of the collapses have been modelled in computational simulations without the need to resort to CD, so that is how I know what a "natural" collapse looks like.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.pdf

I was referring to the separation from its horizontal supports and the floors of the column that ran through the structure directly below the penthouse. Anyhow, I am not committed to the idea that the penthouse structure had to be destroyed before the rest. I believe it likely that the penthouse structure coming down seconds before the main collapse was not a design of the demolition but simply an effect of the initial high level charges used to weaken the building before the main charges caused complete collapse.

I demonstrated that charges at a high level may be fired seconds before the rest as in the case of the JL Hudson building. Also the

shows high level charges approximately 8 seconds prior to the main collapse.

By horizontal separation, I meant that one side of the JL Hudson building was brought down first, while the second part, at a horizontal separation from the first, followed. In other words, left first then right. A vertical separation means top first then bottom, and you have yet to show an example of vertical separation with a several second delay. I certainly can't see it in your Maputo video, which seems to show charges going off at several levels simultaneously, first to separate the sections of the building then to demolish them - horizontal separation again.

Sorry, I will rephrase - it is quite ridiculous that an office fire and random damage should imitate the results of that setup.

Ah, another of your profound engineering judgements based on years of study. Perhaps you should actually start that study some time.

That apart, while the final seconds of the WTC7 collapse indeed look like a CD, there are key features that look nothing like a CD, including the damage, the long-duration fires and the penthouse collapse. The towers look nothing like a CD, full stop.

Enough said.

The less severe case was the one in a direction away from the actual impact, the more severe case and the baseline case bracketed it.

The perimeter bowing was due primarily to a combination of gravity load transfer from the core and pull-in forces. So are you trying to say that an airliner impact and fire is the only possible event with the properties that would produce these factors? No, weakening and distortion of the core columns through demolition charges would produce these conditions.

You say the bowing predicted by NIST fits very well when in fact, through running the severe impact and fire cases and applying pull-in forces, the WTC1 model showed bowing of only 31 in. rather than the 55 in. observed in reality. NIST had already increased all variables to their maximum extremity and could not get a match. This indicates another factor must have caused the bowing – entirely likely the demolition scenario I mentioned above.

As for predicting the location of the bowing, if NIST had simply set the models on their merry way and bowing was predicted where observed as you imply, well that would have been quite impressive! Luckily, having read the reports, I know better than to take you at your word on these issues. In NIST’s own words: -

“The analysis of a single exterior face provided insight into the conditions that would result in the inward bowing of the south wall of WTC 1 and the east wall of WTC 2 observed in photographs.”

And further: -

“The exterior wall models were used to estimate the pull-in force magnitude and locations for each tower that would produce the observed bowing of the exterior wall.”

In other words, NIST observed the bowing in photographic evidence and then sought to provide the figures that would result in it. They saw bowing in the WTC1 south wall and so included pull-in forces precisely to that wall. This is not any sort of prediction but, as we have become accustomed to, a ‘fixing’ of the figures to support a preconceived conclusion.

What exactly is NIST’s conclusion? All confirmed is that an increased impact situation from that observed, highly questionable fire models and ‘fixing’ of figures to preconceptions can initiate collapse in a simulation. I have no problem accepting that conclusion either. But seriously, I tend to concentrate on the reality of the situation, not NIST’s ‘twilight zone’ scenario.

Er, you are simultaneously claiming that the NIST simulation fit to the bowing isn't good enough for you, and that NIST used the actual bowing as an input. You do realise that there is an incompatibility between these arguments? You can only have pull-in forces if you have a possible cause for such forces. The NIST structural and fire modelling has this cause, but your CD theory hasn't.

Gilsanz has not released his computer model of the WTC7 collapse. If it exists, for sure I would believe that, by completely removing the column below the penthouse, it simulated a kink. What I would be interested to see is how the model supposes this column was removed in the first place and further how this resulted in virtually symmetrical, near freefall, global collapse. For instance, in his FEMA paper, Gilsanz describes the fire causing collapse as having “a low probability of occurrence”, yet in his more recent paper he continually refers to the fires without question. Evidence and explanation of the cause and collapse are the vital points Gilsanz omits (basically everything then) and anyone with an enquiring mind is more than qualified to judge how comprehensive his theory is, or is not, without them.

I did suggest that you contacted Gilsanz directly with your questions about his model, but for some obscure reason you claimed this was not practical. How impractical is it for you to send an e-mail? Why is so much more impractical than posting here?

Covert or false flag operations are by their very nature designed not to be obvious. Still, as you say, what seems ‘obvious’ is a good starting point. What irks is when a ‘starting point’ becomes a preconception, followed to the detriment of any other explanation. Why continue on a path that is proving impossible for the experts to reconcile without ‘fixing’ and ‘stretching’ the figures when there is an explanation – controlled demolition – that is supported by a host of evidence and easily answers every outstanding question.

The experts appear to think that their collapse process is far from impossible, so who are you to disagree? On the other hand, the experts for some reason do not appear to share your opinion that there is any evidence for CD, rather that the evidence rules out CD.

Ross assumed that 10% of the concrete was pulverised and, judging by visual evidence of the large dust cloud during and after collapse, this appears reasonable. Incidentally, even if Ross had assumed 5% this would still have demonstrated an energy deficiency in continuing the collapse. Yes, this is an area where estimation is necessary, though it is more realistic than not allowing for the dust cloud at all, as with Bazant’s paper where it is inexplicably assumed that “all the impact forces go into the columns”.

Your double standards are showing. After all your quibbles about NIST, you are quite happy that Ross picked a number out of thin air.

Bazant and Zhou's paper assumes that the columns take the forces because that is the conservative assumption. If the columns don't stop the collapse, the weaker parts of the structure certainly wont.

Because in explaining the collapses, the controlled demolition has various possibilities, whilst the ‘official’ story has none.

If these possibilities are mutually incompatible, the CD theory is in trouble. The official theory doea not need anything beyond the fact of the impacts and the use of standard engineering prediction methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pseudo-ists would say what?

Let's not fix holes and problems in (what used to be) INS.

Let's not tighten airline travel procedures.

Let's not reconsider or act upon our foreign policy issues.

Let's conduct a witchhunt.

Let's stumble around with pre-industrial era level analysis.

Let's screw up and make some of the dumbest conclusions, any country can make.

Let's not be practical, and waste our time and efforts listening to the lesser lights of academia, or the INTERNET!

I am convinced some people are "color-blind", when it comes to dealing with various aspects of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, frankly, if the crazo suicidal types are convinced they need "connections on the inside" to make their trouble, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive just watched the movie, A mighty heart based on the book Mariane Pearl.

In one scene a jourmalist is interviewing a guy about the 911 bombings and the guy says it was orchestrated by the jews, that 4000 jewish people who worked in the towers did not turn up for work that day, does anyone know if this is true or ficton for the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive just watched the movie, A mighty heart based on the book Mariane Pearl.

In one scene a jourmalist is interviewing a guy about the 911 bombings and the guy says it was orchestrated by the jews, that 4000 jewish people who worked in the towers did not turn up for work that day, does anyone know if this is true or ficton for the book.

That is not true at all..... Just a rumor and not a very nice one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive just watched the movie, A mighty heart based on the book Mariane Pearl.

In one scene a jourmalist is interviewing a guy about the 911 bombings and the guy says it was orchestrated by the jews, that 4000 jewish people who worked in the towers did not turn up for work that day, does anyone know if this is true or ficton for the book.

Indeed it is poor fiction. Here is one of the first links I found on a quick google, if you don't like the 'official'-ness of the source there are planty of other sites that discuss the same stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not doubting what you guys say, i found it hard to believe.

but the movie is based on a true story an was written by the kidnaped journalists wife. funny how she would put that in her version of the story and the movie. the wife was played by Angelie jolie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it is poor fiction. Here is one of the first links I found on a quick google, if you don't like the 'official'-ness of the source there are planty of other sites that discuss the same stats.

Isn’t it strange that this ‘4,000 Israelis didn’t go to work’ rumour got such widespread coverage after 9/11 and was even given more publicity by the government website linked. Everyone seems to know about this rumour.

Yet hardly anyone seems to know that five Israeli intelligence agents were arrested in New York on 9/11 in direct relation to the attacks.

Dissemination of false rumours to discredit the truths perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've covered most of this is my recent replies to turbonium.

You still seem to be missing the point that a lot of the names on the NIST report are from non-government organisations, not NIST staff.

The point is it’s a government report with the individual study areas tied together by the NIST team leaders and as such cannot be seen to be publicly expressing a controversial political viewpoint.

Notwithstanding the above, I took a good look at the list of NIST contractors. As I have been saying, the area of contribution is important and sure enough everything from occupant behaviour and evacuation studies to fire alarm and smoke management system analysis was revealed – completely irrelevant to the physical collapses.

It happens that the largest group of contractors are employees of Science Applications International Corporation who, as well as having had well-known public servants on its Board of Directors including a former CIA Director, interestingly are the ninth largest Department of Defense contractor in the US and have also worked with the FBI and NSA – hardly unaffiliated.

After filtering out the members who did not make a direct contribution to the Tower impact, fire and collapse initiation simulation, I was left with only four companies comprising of less than 30 listed staff altogether, plus a handful of other individuals.

Considering all of the above, NIST’s list is entirely unimpressive compared to the 300+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation.

Your proposed charges are enormous, hiding them is implausible, and you have produced no evidence for your claim that maintenance staff were kept out of any areas.

Linear cutting charges are not ‘enormous’ at all: -

linked-image

Neither would the thermite units, used to finally initiate the collapses, be ‘enormous’ and concealment was quite plausible through selective placement around the structural columns in service areas and elevator shafts.

Bowing is an indication of incipient structural failure, and it occured several minutes before the collapse. The failures, on that basis, were not sudden.

The downward movement of the upper block was sudden. In the case of the Madrid building where partial collapse occurred, the entire area severely distorted and sagged prior to that collapse. Limited bowing to one area of a single wall is not an indication that ‘global collapse’ is about to occur.

Where is the precedent for an occupied building being prepped for CD? Where is the precedent for a CD setup surviving impact damage and fire? Where is the precedent for a CD leaving no physical clues?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the physical collapse characteristics of the buildings for which there is much precedent seen in controlled demolitions, not your personal misgivings of how the demolition setup was achieved.

The features of the collapses have been modelled in computational simulations without the need to resort to CD, so that is how I know what a "natural" collapse looks like.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.pdf

Oh heck, I can’t stop laughing! :lol: It must have taken you a long time to find a ‘study’ that bad. Did you link it as an attempt to actually make the NIST report look reasonable by comparison? All the usual suspects, ie preconceptions and lack of evidence, are included, plus… wait for it… this is brilliant… in the model, the WTC1 impact is in the wrong location! Look at it – the impact is too low on the model. But hey, if the model says so… :lol: And you said that is how you know what a natural collapse looks like… when it is blatantly out of sync with reality! :lol:

I certainly can't see it in your Maputo video, which seems to show charges going off at several levels simultaneously, first to separate the sections of the building then to demolish them - horizontal separation again.

The JL Hudson and Maputo demolitions both show that it can be necessary to weaken high level areas of the structure prior to the main collapse. The same can be true of WTC7. You may quibble about the demolition techniques but there are plenty more examples. The

shows high level explosives approximately 9 seconds prior to collapse (see third view in the video). The
shows high level explosives approximately 5 seconds prior to collapse. It is plainly ridiculous to say that a demolition of WTC7 could not feature high level explosives prior to its collapse.

That apart, while the final seconds of the WTC7 collapse indeed look like a CD, there are key features that look nothing like a CD, including the damage, the long-duration fires and the penthouse collapse. The towers look nothing like a CD, full stop.

You have absolutely no concept of what “covert” or “unconventional” mean, do you?

The less severe case was the one in a direction away from the actual impact, the more severe case and the baseline case bracketed it.

Whoopdedoo, NIST ‘bracketed it’ between the expected case that did not initiate collapse and a severe case that did. Remind me again – did NIST at any point simulate the actual reality of the impact damage?

Er, you are simultaneously claiming that the NIST simulation fit to the bowing isn't good enough for you, and that NIST used the actual bowing as an input. You do realise that there is an incompatibility between these arguments? You can only have pull-in forces if you have a possible cause for such forces. The NIST structural and fire modelling has this cause, but your CD theory hasn't.

Er, I am stating: -

  1. Through the severe case impact damage and fire, NIST could not reproduce the degree of bowing seen in photographic evidence.
  2. The bowing in computer models is only in the correct location as NIST specifically placed it there.
Bearing the above points in mind, why did you write, “It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too”? Were you lying or was it just a complete misunderstanding on your part?

The controlled demolition scenario easily explains the bowing. Where the core is weakened by the initial linear cutting charges, additional loads and stress will be transferred to the perimeter. Also, distortion or inward deflection of the core columns due to these charges could cause a greater pull-in force than sagging floor trusses ever could.

I did suggest that you contacted Gilsanz directly with your questions about his model, but for some obscure reason you claimed this was not practical. How impractical is it for you to send an e-mail? Why is so much more impractical than posting here?

That is a clear admittance that Gilsanz’ article does not in fact contain evidence and explanation of the cause and collapse process. Why should I be interested in contacting Gilsanz? I only point out the vital omitted areas to show how vague the theory is. You should be the one e-mailing Gilsanz as it is a bit of a joke supporting a theory you don’t understand in full.

The experts appear to think that their collapse process is far from impossible, so who are you to disagree? On the other hand, the experts for some reason do not appear to share your opinion that there is any evidence for CD, rather that the evidence rules out CD.

Which ‘experts’ are you talking about now?

Your double standards are showing. After all your quibbles about NIST, you are quite happy that Ross picked a number out of thin air.

Bazant and Zhou's paper assumes that the columns take the forces because that is the conservative assumption. If the columns don't stop the collapse, the weaker parts of the structure certainly wont.

Ross did not pick a number out of thin air, he gave a reasonable estimate based on photographic evidence, which is a whole lot better than ignoring altogether the energy required to pulverise the concrete as Bazant did.

It is shocking you can’t even understand this very basic point – assuming that the most vital part of the structure, ie the columns, are impacted with more force than is possible, is not a conservative assumption in considering the Tower’s survival. If, as witnessed, energy is expended in breaking the floors/pulverising the concrete and lost in some of the building mass falling outside of its footprint then all of the force cannot have gone into the columns, thus giving the main structure more chance of survival.

If these possibilities are mutually incompatible, the CD theory is in trouble. The official theory doea not need anything beyond the fact of the impacts and the use of standard engineering prediction methods.

So if there are two or more ways of executing a controlled demolition then all must be false? And because no engineering predictions have based simulations on evidence or the reality of the damage situations to the WTC buildings then they must be true? Ok… gotcha. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These demolition and unproven engineering hypes are so backwater they are relegated to an internet forum specializing in ghosts and goblins!

Academia? No! Why?

It's what you call manufactured fraud! For quick-buck books and DVDs, and what are known as high-thrill mentality types. It's a syndrome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will always be free to have their opinions about this topic. The truth is staring us in the face, more each day. Moaning over 9-11 and playing it like a cross-word puzzle, year after year, is tiresome, and a game, of sorts.

No matter where one stands, or one's motives, the future will not be dealt with by reflecting on what-if.

How about REAL answers to REAL problems in the REAL world?

Have any real engineering solutions? How about takling a real problem, for once?

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are still families, and others, affected by those events. And, they might have questions about the studies and reports, or whatever.

I would not want to get into their world, or refer to them.

I would like to refer to these people-

Korey Rowe, 22_ Jason Bermas, 26_ Dylan Avery, 22

We are all in good company, I guess. Sharing the same anti-NIST conclusions as these guys?

The videos I posted, and which everyone ignored (for some reason!) showed the columns bowing inward right before collapse. Naturally, no one could address that fact.

It's just an endless internet squabble of one-upmanship!

Spinners, not NIST, lose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aljazeera News, 2006

Moussaoui Scorns 9/11 Victims-

Moussaoui mocked the tearful testimony of 9/11 victims and their families and wished for similar attacks every day until America falls. He gave a detailed explanation of his hatred for America, flipping through a Quran on the witness stand trying to find justification for his views.

The most visceral testimony came as Moussaoui again revelled in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, one day after the jury ended a week of gut-wrenching testimony from 9/11 families and victims.

Moussaoui called an Army officer who crawled on his belly to safety beneath searing smoke, "pathetic", and ridiculed a Navy officer who wept as she described the loss of two colleagues.

"I think it was disgusting for a military person" to cry, Moussaoui said of the testimony of Navy Lieutenant Nancy McKeown. "She is military, she should expect people at war with her to want to kill her."

Asked if he was happy to hear her sobbing, he said, "Make my day."

Prosecutor Rob Spencer asked Moussaoui: "So you would be happy to see 9/11 again?"

"Every day until we get you," the 37-year-old Frenchman responded.

linked-image

Nice company to be in, huh?! Instead of the research by NIST (albeit one that improved over time)?

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn’t it strange that this ‘4,000 Israelis didn’t go to work’ rumour got such widespread coverage after 9/11 and was even given more publicity by the government website linked. Everyone seems to know about this rumour.

Yet hardly anyone seems to know that five Israeli intelligence agents were arrested in New York on 9/11 in direct relation to the attacks.

Dissemination of false rumours to discredit the truths perhaps?

Doubtful. I think if 4000 jews really didn't didn't turn up for work that day it's a much bigger story than a couple of guys being arrested and certainly there is enough anti-Semitism out there to start and drive a rumour without the government needing to be involved. Certainly to the casual reader / listener (who perhaps would not do as much back-research and conspiricy theorising as yourself) the 4000 story is a far more sensational story and is more likely to be passed on. Logically it follows that a large, false, potentially highly-damaging story is more likely to need an official debunk than a story that hardly anyone knows about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you are correct. We are playing the "what if?" game. 150 years from now, historians might have a clue, provided that government officials actually keep notes. For certainty, though, Dick Cheney never keeps notes. He never writes things down. I'm not saying that he does or doesn't know more than the administration lets on. I'm just saying that he does not keep notes. He is the perfect politico - with absolute plausible deniability.

People will always be free to have their opinions about this topic. The truth is staring us in the face, more each day. Moaning over 9-11 and playing it like a cross-word puzzle, year after year, is tiresome, and a game, of sorts.

No matter where one stands, or one's motives, the future will not be dealt with by reflecting on what-if.

How about REAL answers to REAL problems in the REAL world?

Have any real engineering solutions? How about takling a real problem, for once?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After filtering out the members who did not make a direct contribution to the Tower impact, fire and collapse initiation simulation, I was left with only four companies comprising of less than 30 listed staff altogether, plus a handful of other individuals.

Considering all of the above, NIST’s list is entirely unimpressive compared to the 300+ Architects and Engineers who are calling for a new investigation.

How about applying a similar filter to your 300+ names? How many are qualified in structural or fire engineering? Omit all the architects, electrical and chemical engineers, etc, how many are left? Now consider that AE911Truth don't appear to check the qualifications of their "names", and that a few random checks have shown that there are "names" who don't appear to be who they say they are.

Linear cutting charges are not ‘enormous’ at all: -

Neither would the thermite units, used to finally initiate the collapses, be ‘enormous’ and concealment was quite plausible through selective placement around the structural columns in service areas and elevator shafts.

That picture shows HE charges. Your thermite charges have got to be enormous because, first, you claim the WTC2 molten cascade is one, and that masses at least several hundred kg, and second, you video of a thermite column cutter showed a device much bigger than the column it cut. Either give up these points or admit you need charges so big they couldn't be hidden.

The downward movement of the upper block was sudden. In the case of the Madrid building where partial collapse occurred, the entire area severely distorted and sagged prior to that collapse. Limited bowing to one area of a single wall is not an indication that ‘global collapse’ is about to occur.

The WTC towers had sagging floors too. What exactly do you expect, and why?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the physical collapse characteristics of the buildings for which there is much precedent seen in controlled demolitions, not your personal misgivings of how the demolition setup was achieved.

You brought up the "precedent" argument, I just showed that it works both ways.

Oh heck, I can’t stop laughing! :lol: It must have taken you a long time to find a ‘study’ that bad. Did you link it as an attempt to actually make the NIST report look reasonable by comparison? All the usual suspects, ie preconceptions and lack of evidence, are included, plus… wait for it… this is brilliant… in the model, the WTC1 impact is in the wrong location! Look at it – the impact is too low on the model. But hey, if the model says so… :lol: And you said that is how you know what a natural collapse looks like… when it is blatantly out of sync with reality! :lol:

As it is an English summary of a paper in Chinese, there is not that much detail. I mainly picked it as completely independent of the US government. I'm not sure you can say that the impact is in the wrong place, as they do not mention the location in the summary, nor do they say how much of the building is shown in the diagrams.

The JL Hudson and Maputo demolitions both show that it can be necessary to weaken high level areas of the structure prior to the main collapse. The same can be true of WTC7. You may quibble about the demolition techniques but there are plenty more examples. The
shows high level explosives approximately 9 seconds prior to collapse (see third view in the video). The
shows high level explosives approximately 5 seconds prior to collapse. It is plainly ridiculous to say that a demolition of WTC7 could not feature high level explosives prior to its collapse.

You still don't get it, do you? All your examples show vertical arrays of charges to separate the building into separate horizontal blocks - horizontal separation. None of them show a charge used to bring down the top of a building several seconds before any other layers of the building - vertical separation.

You have absolutely no concept of what “covert” or “unconventional” mean, do you?

I'm just pointing out that you are using "covert demolition" to bring anything whatever into your theory. If you are simultaneously using anything that might look like a CD as also supporting your theory, you make your theory impossible to disprove. It's like a creationist claiming that god created an earth six thousands years ago, but that he included fossils that looked millions of years old. In other words, it is pointless dating fossils to prove the age of the earth because they are faked. In scientific terms, if you claim the fossils are faked, it is your burden of proof to show that they are. "They could have been faked, god can do anything" is unfalsifiable, so valueless as an argument. In the same way, your claiming that it could have been a covert CD puts the burden of proof on you. "It could have been covert, the CIA/Mossad/whoever can do anything" is unfalsifiable, so valueless as an argument.

Whoopdedoo, NIST ‘bracketed it’ between the expected case that did not initiate collapse and a severe case that did. Remind me again – did NIST at any point simulate the actual reality of the impact damage?

No, but there are good engineering reasons for accepting that an intermediate case exactly matching the impact damage would also have led to the collapse.

Er, I am stating: -

  1. Through the severe case impact damage and fire, NIST could not reproduce the degree of bowing seen in photographic evidence.
  2. The bowing in computer models is only in the correct location as NIST specifically placed it there.
Bearing the above points in mind, why did you write, “It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too”? Were you lying or was it just a complete misunderstanding on your part?

NIST used an exterior wall model to match bowing to fire effect on the walls and hence calibrated the model for the ratio of pull-in force to bowing. Your NIST quotes refer to this calibration process. Pull-in force was then calculated from the global structural modelling of the fire. The difference between measured and predicted bowing is not that significant, as the bowing was very sensitive to small changes to the forces.

The bowing occurs where the floors sag due to the predicted position of the fire and the damage.

The controlled demolition scenario easily explains the bowing. Where the core is weakened by the initial linear cutting charges, additional loads and stress will be transferred to the perimeter. Also, distortion or inward deflection of the core columns due to these charges could cause a greater pull-in force than sagging floor trusses ever could.

That may be your opinion, but you have been repeatedly proved wrong in your opinion of how structures work. If this is indeed so, why have none of your 300+ people managed to produce a technical argument showing how this could happen?

That is a clear admittance that Gilsanz’ article does not in fact contain evidence and explanation of the cause and collapse process. Why should I be interested in contacting Gilsanz? I only point out the vital omitted areas to show how vague the theory is. You should be the one e-mailing Gilsanz as it is a bit of a joke supporting a theory you don’t understand in full.

I find his theory plausible, so do the publishers (and apparently the readers) of Structure magazine, who are the structural engineers professional organisation.

I might point out that when, in the long thread, I first came up with my theory of how WTC7 collapsed, you ridiculed it, laying much stress on the fact that I wasn't a professional structural engineer. Now Gilsanz, a professional structural engineer, has published a similar theory based on a lot more analysis than I am able to do. Your response is to try everything you can to discredit Gilsanz ("he was a consultant to NIST, he must have been got at by the government") while generally claiming that his paper lacks detail. Seeing that his paper is a semi-technical summary of his work rather than a detailed technical report, this is hardly surprising, but since I came up independently with a similar collapse process, I find no problem in accepting his work.

You say you want more detail, you ask him.

Which ‘experts’ are you talking about now?

The NIST team, plus all the engineers who have published papers presenting models of the collapse.

Ross did not pick a number out of thin air, he gave a reasonable estimate based on photographic evidence, which is a whole lot better than ignoring altogether the energy required to pulverise the concrete as Bazant did.

Then where are his calculations?

That apart, Ross's energy accounting is deeply flawed. Where does he think the energy he calculates as being lost in the first impact actually goes? Energy can't just vanish, and much of this lost energy will go into pulverising concrete. In effect, by making up an extra figure for the energy absorbed in pulverising concrete, he is counting this amount twice.

It is shocking you can’t even understand this very basic point – assuming that the most vital part of the structure, ie the columns, are impacted with more force than is possible, is not a conservative assumption in considering the Tower’s survival. If, as witnessed, energy is expended in breaking the floors/pulverising the concrete and lost in some of the building mass falling outside of its footprint then all of the force cannot have gone into the columns, thus giving the main structure more chance of survival.

You are confusing an energy calculation with a force calculation. B&Z's paper is basically the latter. Ross uses both types, more or less agreeing with B&Z on the force calculation, but getting the energy calculation wrong. However, note that Ross also uses column-to-column impact as the conservative assumption.

So if there are two or more ways of executing a controlled demolition then all must be false? And because no engineering predictions have based simulations on evidence or the reality of the damage situations to the WTC buildings then they must be true? Ok… gotcha. :tu:

Turbonium uses one theory to explain one aspect of the collapses, you use another theory to explain another aspect. Your theory means that turbonium's explanation doesn't work, his means that yours doesn't. They can't both be true, and neither explains both aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:P I cannot believe that anyone thinks the destruction of the twin towers could possibly be a controlled destruction. It is impossible to hide the work of a CD. Everyone has to be moved out, and bobcats are moved in to remove as much material as possible, including much of the columns. It takes months of work, and could hardly be done in secret.

~~~Cebrakon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about applying a similar filter to your 300+ names? How many are qualified in structural or fire engineering? Omit all the architects, electrical and chemical engineers, etc, how many are left? Now consider that AE911Truth don't appear to check the qualifications of their "names", and that a few random checks have shown that there are "names" who don't appear to be who they say they are.

However is it logical to omit all the architects and engineers of AE911Truth? The filter I applied to the ‘official’ investigation was simply to produce a list of non-NIST staff that made a contribution to the impact/fire/collapse initiation and showed that there are very few.

I have already made points about most of NIST’s contractors not actually contributing to the collapse simulation and the likes of large Defense contractors being on the list. In addition to this, just the name of an organisation on the list does not mean the employees of that body unequivocally support the ‘official’ story as seen in the case of Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (fired for giving an opposing view – and you’re going to tell me there’s free speech in this investigation?). There are also University lecturers on NIST’s list, though the case of Professor Steven Jones (also sacked for supplying an opposing view) shows this support is not across the board. There is even division somewhat within NIST’s own ranks as highlighted by their former Chief of Fire Science, James Quintiere, who has questioned the validity of the Tower fire models - I wonder how long he would have lasted if he had made those same comments as a current NIST employee?

So after demonstrating the relatively few individuals who having studied the collapses support the official story, the split in the ranks and political restrictions inherent to the investigation, you turn to attacking Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The 300+ professionals who oppose the official story are exaggerated or made-up, so you say – “ooh, someone is making-up names to discredit us!” That sounds like quite the little conspiracy theory you have created there; desperation to save face of the official investigation.

That picture shows HE charges. Your thermite charges have got to be enormous because, first, you claim the WTC2 molten cascade is one, and that masses at least several hundred kg, and second, you video of a thermite column cutter showed a device much bigger than the column it cut. Either give up these points or admit you need charges so big they couldn't be hidden.

The size of the linear thermite cutting charge in the video in relation to the steel rod is irrelevant as this appears to be intended as a demonstration showing how the device works. There is nothing to say that the device could not have cut or at least severely weakened a steel rod much larger. Also, scaling up of the device may increase its effectiveness disproportionately. In any case, I do not say the device in this video was the exact type used; I raise it mainly to show how effectively thermite can cut steel horizontally.

I have no problem with the WTC2 thermite flow being around a couple of hundred kilograms. The following figures are taken from what happens to be a ‘debunking’ site: -

54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.

160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

Using the above, 200kg of thermite equates to a unit of 47,619cm3 or a device approximately perhaps of dimensions 20cm x 25cm x 100cm. This is not ‘enormous’, could be transported without raising suspicion and placed flat against the core columns. If you want to claim the thermite units must have been larger you will need good justification for the claim.

In researching the different possibilities, I came across US Patent Application 20060266204, a thermite charge that describes itself as, “useful for structure entry or demolition”. This would further clear up the question of whether a thermite initiated controlled demolition is possible.

The WTC towers had sagging floors too. What exactly do you expect, and why?

How do we know the Towers had sagging floors? And for gawd sake don’t say because of the bowing (which could be caused through pull-in of the core columns) or because of the UL tests carried out for NIST (for which there is no evidence of the temperatures assumed). I read somewhere that there are photographs showing the floors sagging but cannot find them.

What I expect to see prior to a complete drop of the upper block is severe distortion of the entire collapse initiation point. The Windsor building fire demonstrates the stress a structure can withstand before partial collapse: -

linked-image

Obviously there was nothing like this on 9/11 - just a sudden and unexpected entry into near freefall.

As it is an English summary of a paper in Chinese, there is not that much detail. I mainly picked it as completely independent of the US government. I'm not sure you can say that the impact is in the wrong place, as they do not mention the location in the summary, nor do they say how much of the building is shown in the diagrams.

I’m well used to the lack of detail and evidence in papers supporting the ‘official’ theory… but those models just crack me up :lol: Oh save the “I’m not sure…” as it is an absolute no-brainer the WTC1 ‘model’ shows the impact in the wrong place. I would have thought the graphic shows the full Tower height though this makes no difference as the proportions of the upper block are all wrong. Anyhow enough of the jokes as there are a few serious questions: -

You earlier said to turbonium, “… there is a difference between film industry CGI and an engineering computer simulation. The difference is that the latter incorporates the physics of real-world behaviour.” Look properly at the WTC1 impact and then tell me, are the images in the Chinese paper simulations or simply CGI?

You also said, “The features of the collapses have been modelled in computational simulations without the need to resort to CD, so that is how I know what a "natural" collapse looks like.” In my previous laughter I forgot to point out that the collapses have not been simulated – indeed NIST halted their ‘investigation’ at the point of collapse initiation. I would therefore be very interested if you could direct me to these collapse simulations based on real-world physics that you describe.

You still don't get it, do you? All your examples show vertical arrays of charges to separate the building into separate horizontal blocks - horizontal separation. None of them show a charge used to bring down the top of a building several seconds before any other layers of the building - vertical separation.

No, you still don’t get it because instead of listening to what I am saying, you are making up your own theory. I am suggesting that the penthouse collapse was not a design of the demolition, but an accidental by-product of high level charges used to break-up the structure.

Remind me again – did NIST at any point simulate the actual reality of the impact damage?

No, but there are good engineering reasons for accepting that an intermediate case exactly matching the impact damage would also have led to the collapse.

Again, enough said.

NIST used an exterior wall model to match bowing to fire effect on the walls and hence calibrated the model for the ratio of pull-in force to bowing. Your NIST quotes refer to this calibration process. Pull-in force was then calculated from the global structural modelling of the fire. The difference between measured and predicted bowing is not that significant, as the bowing was very sensitive to small changes to the forces.

The bowing occurs where the floors sag due to the predicted position of the fire and the damage.

You need to read NCSTAR1-6 pg. lix before you carry on with this. NIST observed the bowing and then applied a pull-in force of 6 kip across each column of their south wall model in an attempt to match that bowing. The model did not ‘predict’ bowing; it is clear NIST specifically put it there. I dare say NIST could have applied pull-in forces to east or west wall models and produced bowing there too if they had wanted.

Also, your waving away of the bowing severity as “not that significant” is unacceptable. Through 6 kip pull-in forces, a deflection of only 31 in. was shown in the model, rather than the 55 in. observed in reality. NIST go on to say that 6 kip is overstated and that a 4-5 kip force was used in the final model. This lesser force would produce reduced bowing even from the 31 in. It seems to me that if within the known impact and fire parameters NIST could not reproduce the degree of bowing seen in their own photographic evidence, then they must have got the bowing process wrong, ie the impact and fire was not the cause of bowing!

That may be your opinion, but you have been repeatedly proved wrong in your opinion of how structures work. If this is indeed so, why have none of your 300+ people managed to produce a technical argument showing how this could happen?

I have not been “proved wrong” even once; that is your wishful thinking. The reason I would think there has been no technical paper put forward for the controlled demolitions is that there are too many permutations in its execution and also that it is entirely unnecessary - all required is to show that the collapses were not a result of the impacts or fires and the ‘official’ story falls apart. Though, as the ‘official’ story has completely failed to prove its case in the first place, there is actually nothing to disprove.

I find his theory plausible, so do the publishers (and apparently the readers) of Structure magazine, who are the structural engineers professional organisation.

I might point out that when, in the long thread, I first came up with my theory of how WTC7 collapsed, you ridiculed it, laying much stress on the fact that I wasn't a professional structural engineer. Now Gilsanz, a professional structural engineer, has published a similar theory based on a lot more analysis than I am able to do. Your response is to try everything you can to discredit Gilsanz ("he was a consultant to NIST, he must have been got at by the government") while generally claiming that his paper lacks detail. Seeing that his paper is a semi-technical summary of his work rather than a detailed technical report, this is hardly surprising, but since I came up independently with a similar collapse process, I find no problem in accepting his work.

You say you want more detail, you ask him.

That you find Gilsanz’ theory plausible without evidence or explanation of the WTC7 collapse really shows the low standards and faith you have.

Your own theory is unlike Gilsanz’ and goes into an area that he did not dare – the main collapse. After the penthouse supposedly burrows its way down through the structure, somehow tearing free of its horizontal supports all the way, the pieces in your own words “bounce around” at the bottom of the ‘tunnel’ it has created and this is what causes the virtually symmetrical, near freefall main collapse.

Amongst the many issues that do not make sense in your theory, can you explain, with all of the surrounding structure up to roof level, how column 79 moves out of vertical? Can you explain why column 79 below the penthouse may act independently of the structure but the other columns must fail together, bringing the main structure down as one piece? Can you explain why the removal of column 79 on the east of the building should cause simultaneous failure to the west of the structure?

Then where are his calculations?

That apart, Ross's energy accounting is deeply flawed. Where does he think the energy he calculates as being lost in the first impact actually goes? Energy can't just vanish, and much of this lost energy will go into pulverising concrete. In effect, by making up an extra figure for the energy absorbed in pulverising concrete, he is counting this amount twice.

The energy required for pulverisation of the concrete is an estimation based on photographic evidence. If it is so easy to calculate the dust cloud in the first stages of collapse why don’t you work it out and let Ross know what the numbers should be?

The energy is dissipated in the elastic and shortening phases of the columns and pulverisation of concrete at the impact floors. Allowing for both the columns and concrete floors to be impacted is comprehensive, not double-counting.

Turbonium uses one theory to explain one aspect of the collapses, you use another theory to explain another aspect. Your theory means that turbonium's explanation doesn't work, his means that yours doesn't. They can't both be true, and neither explains both aspects.

Turbonium and myself were both referring to the penthouse collapse for which between us we put forward two different though both plausible reasons. Since when did “either/or” begin to mean “neither” in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However is it logical to omit all the architects and engineers of AE911Truth? The filter I applied to the ‘official’ investigation was simply to produce a list of non-NIST staff that made a contribution to the impact/fire/collapse initiation and showed that there are very few.

I was just suggesting that you restricted the AE911T list to those actually capable of evaluating the "official" theory. Structural and fire engineers. How many can they muster?

I have already made points about most of NIST’s contractors not actually contributing to the collapse simulation and the likes of large Defense contractors being on the list. In addition to this, just the name of an organisation on the list does not mean the employees of that body unequivocally support the ‘official’ story as seen in the case of Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (fired for giving an opposing view – and you’re going to tell me there’s free speech in this investigation?). There are also University lecturers on NIST’s list, though the case of Professor Steven Jones (also sacked for supplying an opposing view) shows this support is not across the board. There is even division somewhat within NIST’s own ranks as highlighted by their former Chief of Fire Science, James Quintiere, who has questioned the validity of the Tower fire models - I wonder how long he would have lasted if he had made those same comments as a current NIST employee?

Kevin Ryan was fired by UL for using UL's name to promote his personal opinions.

Steven Jones was put on paid leave for similar reasons. The engineers at his university have denounced his theories (did you count those?).

James Quintiere questions some of the details of the NIST findings, but has said that there is no evidence for CD. Count him on the anti-CD side too.

So after demonstrating the relatively few individuals who having studied the collapses support the official story, the split in the ranks and political restrictions inherent to the investigation, you turn to attacking Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The 300+ professionals who oppose the official story are exaggerated or made-up, so you say – “ooh, someone is making-up names to discredit us!” That sounds like quite the little conspiracy theory you have created there; desperation to save face of the official investigation.

Of five AE911T names picked at random, only one appeared to actually exist. This suggests that your 300+ professionals actually number rather less. This is not a conspiracy theory on my part, I have no idea whether the false names on the list are people trying to discredit AE911T or conspiracists trying to push up the numbers.

The size of the linear thermite cutting charge in the video in relation to the steel rod is irrelevant as this appears to be intended as a demonstration showing how the device works. There is nothing to say that the device could not have cut or at least severely weakened a steel rod much larger. Also, scaling up of the device may increase its effectiveness disproportionately. In any case, I do not say the device in this video was the exact type used; I raise it mainly to show how effectively thermite can cut steel horizontally.

I have no problem with the WTC2 thermite flow being around a couple of hundred kilograms. The following figures are taken from what happens to be a ‘debunking’ site: -

54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.

160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

Using the above, 200kg of thermite equates to a unit of 47,619cm3 or a device approximately perhaps of dimensions 20cm x 25cm x 100cm. This is not ‘enormous’, could be transported without raising suspicion and placed flat against the core columns. If you want to claim the thermite units must have been larger you will need good justification for the claim.

In researching the different possibilities, I came across US Patent Application 20060266204, a thermite charge that describes itself as, “useful for structure entry or demolition”. This would further clear up the question of whether a thermite initiated controlled demolition is possible.

Fact is, that video is the only evidence you have of a thermite column cutter, and you seem unable to give any example of a larger one working. In the absence of any other evidence, scaling up from that video is all you can do. I showed on the long thread that you would have to scale such a device linearly with the dimensions of the column.

Given also that the video is by way of being a demonstration, I'd be very surprised if they cut a small column when a bigger and more impressive column was possible.

I don't know where you got only two hundred kg for the cascade. Estimates I've seen range from several hundred kg to tonnes. Even on your figures, a device a metre long is pretty noticable, certainly impossible to hide under spray-on insulation.

How do we know the Towers had sagging floors? And for gawd sake don’t say because of the bowing (which could be caused through pull-in of the core columns) or because of the UL tests carried out for NIST (for which there is no evidence of the temperatures assumed). I read somewhere that there are photographs showing the floors sagging but cannot find them.

What I expect to see prior to a complete drop of the upper block is severe distortion of the entire collapse initiation point. The Windsor building fire demonstrates the stress a structure can withstand before partial collapse: -

Obviously there was nothing like this on 9/11 - just a sudden and unexpected entry into near freefall.

As you say, photographic evidence. NCSTAR 1-6D, p324, for example.

Sorry to disillusion you, but structures frequently behave like that, particularly steel structures failing through buckling of columns. At first just a little bowing, then suddenly the whole thing goes. Once a column bows sufficiently to be unable to support its load, that's it. Further bowing means even less load capacity, so you have a positive feedback situation

I’m well used to the lack of detail and evidence in papers supporting the ‘official’ theory… but those models just crack me up :lol: Oh save the “I’m not sure…” as it is an absolute no-brainer the WTC1 ‘model’ shows the impact in the wrong place. I would have thought the graphic shows the full Tower height though this makes no difference as the proportions of the upper block are all wrong. Anyhow enough of the jokes as there are a few serious questions: -

You earlier said to turbonium, “… there is a difference between film industry CGI and an engineering computer simulation. The difference is that the latter incorporates the physics of real-world behaviour.” Look properly at the WTC1 impact and then tell me, are the images in the Chinese paper simulations or simply CGI?

They used the LS-DYNA code, a widely used structural simulation package. That is in the summary of the paper if you bother to read it.

http://www.ansys.com/products/lsdyna.asp

You also said, “The features of the collapses have been modelled in computational simulations without the need to resort to CD, so that is how I know what a "natural" collapse looks like.” In my previous laughter I forgot to point out that the collapses have not been simulated – indeed NIST halted their ‘investigation’ at the point of collapse initiation. I would therefore be very interested if you could direct me to these collapse simulations based on real-world physics that you describe.

You may find the Chinese paper funny, but then you found "real structures aren't rigid" equally funny. Laughing at something you don't understand is hardly a route to truth. Fact remains, it is an engineering simulation of the collapse using a standard engineering tool.

You are obviously aware of B&Z, and there's a recent paper by Seffen in J Eng Mech that also analyses the collapse.

No, you still don’t get it because instead of listening to what I am saying, you are making up your own theory. I am suggesting that the penthouse collapse was not a design of the demolition, but an accidental by-product of high level charges used to break-up the structure.

That's new, when did you claim that?

Again, enough said.

Say what you like, I'm an engineer, you're not, so why should I take any notice of your mere opinions on engineering matters?

You need to read NCSTAR1-6 pg. lix before you carry on with this. NIST observed the bowing and then applied a pull-in force of 6 kip across each column of their south wall model in an attempt to match that bowing. The model did not ‘predict’ bowing; it is clear NIST specifically put it there. I dare say NIST could have applied pull-in forces to east or west wall models and produced bowing there too if they had wanted.

You completely misunderstand this process - they apply a force to see how large a force corresponds to how big a bowing displacement. They do not "predict" anything, this is a calibration exercise.

Also, your waving away of the bowing severity as “not that significant” is unacceptable. Through 6 kip pull-in forces, a deflection of only 31 in. was shown in the model, rather than the 55 in. observed in reality. NIST go on to say that 6 kip is overstated and that a 4-5 kip force was used in the final model. This lesser force would produce reduced bowing even from the 31 in. It seems to me that if within the known impact and fire parameters NIST could not reproduce the degree of bowing seen in their own photographic evidence, then they must have got the bowing process wrong, ie the impact and fire was not the cause of bowing!

Read the page again. They say that a lesser force would produce enough bowing when combined with the vertical load redistribution. They do not say that the actual bowing is impossible to model.

Once they have a fire and damage model, they use this to predict where and when the floors are likely to sag, hence where to apply pull-in forces.

I have not been “proved wrong” even once; that is your wishful thinking. The reason I would think there has been no technical paper put forward for the controlled demolitions is that there are too many permutations in its execution and also that it is entirely unnecessary - all required is to show that the collapses were not a result of the impacts or fires and the ‘official’ story falls apart. Though, as the ‘official’ story has completely failed to prove its case in the first place, there is actually nothing to disprove.

You have been proved wrong in your contentions that load redistribution should be uniform, that structures are not elastic, that the bowing wasn't real, that column-to-column impact is not a conservative assumption, that no structural engineer would believe my theory of a hidden internal collapse of WTC7 preceding the visible one.

Believe that the official theory doesn't hold if it makes you happy, but even people like Quintiere who question NIST's methods contend that the opposite is true: it's the CD theory that has nothing to support it.

That you find Gilsanz’ theory plausible without evidence or explanation of the WTC7 collapse really shows the low standards and faith you have.

Your own theory is unlike Gilsanz’ and goes into an area that he did not dare – the main collapse. After the penthouse supposedly burrows its way down through the structure, somehow tearing free of its horizontal supports all the way, the pieces in your own words “bounce around” at the bottom of the ‘tunnel’ it has created and this is what causes the virtually symmetrical, near freefall main collapse.

Amongst the many issues that do not make sense in your theory, can you explain, with all of the surrounding structure up to roof level, how column 79 moves out of vertical? Can you explain why column 79 below the penthouse may act independently of the structure but the other columns must fail together, bringing the main structure down as one piece? Can you explain why the removal of column 79 on the east of the building should cause simultaneous failure to the west of the structure?

On the contrary, Gilsanz has given an explanation that fits the key piece of evidence that makes the WTC7 collapse unlike a CD. Beam thermal stresses in a fire are enough to push or pull a column out of vertical. I have no reason to doubt that a failure of column 79 is at all implausible given that the building had been on fire for hours. The "removal" you mention is merely the standard way of representing a failed element in a structural model. Once it has failed, it cannot support a load, so you remove it to model this fact. The structure did not have enough redundancy, given the fire and damage, to carry the redistributed load from column 79, so an internal collapse followed, progressive to the west so also bringing down the west penthouse.

If you think an internal collapse is impossible, check out what happened to WTC5.

If you check back into the long thread, you may find that before the Gilsanz paper appeared, I also suggested that the collapsing internal structure could have overloaded the floors low down to pull down the outer walls. You may not like "bounce", but steel is elastic and can indeed bounce, and the examples of the towers shows that the debris pile at the base can be a lot wider than the structure that produced it.

The energy required for pulverisation of the concrete is an estimation based on photographic evidence. If it is so easy to calculate the dust cloud in the first stages of collapse why don’t you work it out and let Ross know what the numbers should be?

The energy is dissipated in the elastic and shortening phases of the columns and pulverisation of concrete at the impact floors. Allowing for both the columns and concrete floors to be impacted is comprehensive, not double-counting.

When did I say it was easy to estimate it? All I've said is that Ross shows no evidence that his number is anything but a guess.

Ross's momentum analysis shows a lot of available energy, more actually than Ross guesses for the concrete pulverisation and steel strains, and this is the source of the energy for those phenomena. By adding in a separate estimate for this energy, Ross does indeed count it all twice.

Turbonium and myself were both referring to the penthouse collapse for which between us we put forward two different though both plausible reasons. Since when did “either/or” begin to mean “neither” in your opinion?

Do I really need to spell it out? Turbonium uses HE charges because they are easy to hide, you use thermite to explain the lack of explosive noises just before the collapse. Thermite isn't easy to hide, HE is noisy. Neither explains the combination of a "quiet" CD with easily hidden charges, which is what you both actually need. Neither of you has an adequate CD theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence? What evidence? All you have is opinions. If there was any actual evidence, of course there would be further investigation, the trouble is there is no evidence.

No evidence? That's pure nonsense.

There's physical evidence, such as iron-rich metal spheres and solidified molten metal. There's evidence in photos and videos, showing molten metal pouring out of the upper floors of one tower. There's evidence from eyewitness accounts, such as the firefighters who reported seeing molten metal "flowing like lava" in the towers' basements.

That's just some of the evidence - there is much, much more evidence than that. Indeed, your argument is the one that lacks any actual evidence.

Badeskov did a check on four picked at random and found only one appeared to actually exist. I picked one at random and found no evidence that he was what he claimed to be. On these admittedly small samples, the proportion of liars looks more than 2/3.

If you'd bothered to check their members page below...

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_

...then you'd have quickly realized how off-base your claim is.

The first page of their website even states.."We will post your name after verifying your A/E credentials"

If you're actually disputing their credentials, then you need to do a whole lot better than come up with unfounded accusations and nonsense innuendo.

Note that their list doesn't include many structural engineers. I think the genuine structural engineers on that list number well below ten.

It's only relevant that there are several structural engineers on that list. The number is irrelevant. Many more may be in agreement, but haven't (yet) joined this specific group.

Btw, are you implying that Architects aren't qualified to address this subject? Or, that only structural engineers are qualified?

If they are genuine structural engineers, why don't they come up with technical reasons for their opinions?

Mechanical engineers, physicists, and architects have published such papers. I don't know if any structural engineers have done so, as yet.

Again - are you implying that only structural engineers are qualified to address this subject?

Are you aware that some structural engineers first claimed that the towers collapsed because the fires melted the steel?...

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Perhaps you now realize that even some of these supposed "experts" can be completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you have no engineering expertise whatever, I obviously have to explain to you (again) that there is a difference between film industry CGI and an engineering computer simulation. The difference is that the latter incorporates the physics of real-world behaviour. That is why computer simulations are used for pretty well all engineering designs these days.

I've worked with engineers on a daily basis for 20 years, so my practical expertise in the field is probably greater than yours. Cut out the pretentious BS.

Computer simulations can indeed make the impossible "appear" to be possible. Simulations are only as valid and reliable as the data being put in to create them. GIGO.

If you don't trust the methods used by NIST, better not enter any new buildings, because they were designed with the same methods.

On the contrary. If you trust the methods used by NIST, then you better not enter any steel-framed buildings. A fire can make them totally collapse in less than an hour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he uses a paraphrase to link to the actual quote.

No, Roberts only tries to make it appear to be a genuine, exact quote from Rodriguez....

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Roberts does not mention that he is paraphrasing what Rodriguez said. Furthermore, Roberts includes quotation marks, which are not used when paraphrasing.

And Roberts further tries to give the impression that this is a direct quote, by noting: "Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement."

Roberts is lying, pure and simple.

If Rodriguez says he doesn't talk about bombs, it hardly matters where the bombs he doesn't talk about were supposed to be.

As he in fact does talk about bombs (in the buildings, as it happens), he contradicts himself.

No, you're misinterpreting what he said. This was the quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

He's simply saying that he is not an expert on explosives. That's why he says he doesn't talk about bombs - as in the specific types of bombs / explosives used, etc. - because he is "not an explosives expert".

You're so intent on smearing him, you twist and spin the most irrelevant points to try and help your ludicrous argument.

You made up a quote to slander and smear NASA, but Czero101 has beaten me to the pot, kettle comment.

You're making the same false accusation against me as Czero did. I made Czero eat his words, just the same as I will with you. What you and he have failed to understand is that I have the truth on my side.

I think that the link I gave was enough evidence in itself - you made up a quote (post #397), repeated it (post #406), then under questioning (post #407) had to admit fabricating it (post #408). You then claimed it was a joke, but still got a mods warning for lying (post # 410). Since then, I've found no problem in treating all your posts as jokes.

I made up a joke. When it wasn't understood that I meant it as a joke, I simply explained that I meant it as a joke.

I posted this analogy for Czero, because it perfectly reflects my situation...

A guest on Letterman makes up a joke about what Cheney said to Bush. Someone in the audience doesn't understand that it was meant as a joke, and thinks it's an actual quote. So he yells out to the guest "Hey! Cheney never said that!", or "Are you sure he said that? Where'd you hear him say that?" The guest replies that it was just a joke.

The guest wasn't "caught" by the guy in the audience. There was nothing to be "caught" at!

The guest didn't "have to admit" he made up the quote. He had assumed the audience would recognize that he was joking, and had made up the quote for that very reason.

The guest had to explain to the guy that he made up the quote to fashion a joke.

I'll ask you the same questions I asked Czero...

Was the guest "lying"?

Did he "admit to lying"?

Czero refuses to answer these questions. He can't admit that he made a false accusation against me.

So - What about you?

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.