|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 9, 2007 9:16:48 GMT -4
Well, i will quote you in your own words in reply to William Rice a structural engineer objections we discussed about the FEMA and the final NIST theory
I don't want you copy and pasting me either, I want to hear in your own words what the cause was so I know that you understand it, all you have proved so far is that you can do a wonderful job at copy and paste. If you can't show that you can actually understand what the offical report says happened, then why should anyone actually take any notice when you try and claim it didn't?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 9, 2007 9:25:37 GMT -4
Well, i will quote you in your own words in reply to William Rice a structural engineer objections we discussed about the FEMA and the final NIST theoryI don't want you copy and pasting me either, I want to hear in your own words what the cause was so I know that you understand it, all you have proved so far is that you can do a wonderful job at copy and paste. If you can't show that you can actually understand what the offical report says happened, then why should anyone actually take any notice when you try and claim it didn't? I remember something about the sagging and bracing of the floor trusses .But even if I have added it to my first resume that will not have satisfied you either.Right? edit for spelling Edited to add www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htmThe specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC 1 and WTC 2) are: Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns. Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage. These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads. The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns. Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings. Collapse then ensued.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 9, 2007 9:27:07 GMT -4
I couldn't give a stuff who you voted for and your science statement just about sums up your sides argument in it's glorious detail.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 9, 2007 9:30:51 GMT -4
In a nutshell they blame the Aircraft impacts for dislodging the fire insulation from the steel exposing it to multi floor fires.Nope. It is sort of part of it, but the mechanism is very specific and this isn't it, try again. Your hat truss malarkey all stems from removed insulation. The NIST is quite clear that the towers would have remained standing had not those super fires ruined everything.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 9, 2007 9:52:37 GMT -4
It's her View, It's been suppressed for a long time.
By who? Donald Trump? People like Fetzer and others have been making claims in public for years; where is the evidence of suppression of some silly talk-show host?
This must be some new definition of "suppressed" with which I'm not familiar. Apparently it now means "allowed to freely bellow claims of conspiracy and mass murder against the President/VP/CIA/FBI/FAA/DoD/and let's not forget NASA".
By the way, ridicule is not the same as "suppression".
For years we on the other side have watched your sides fat faced bloviator ridicule and yell at anyone who dared question the Emperors theory.
When I read this, I thought "Bill O'Reilly"? But I guess you mean VP Cheney.
And the answer is, he's not "mine". I didn't vote for him; I don't like him, his policies, his lies (such as the Iraq/al Qaeda connection pre-invasion, which he is still pushing), or his culture of secrecy and arrogance. He has done a great deal of harm, in my opinion, to our national interests.
It is sheer rubbish implying that all, or even most of us, must be some sort of devotees of the current Administration because we don't believe they were behind 9/11. There are maybe two regulars here who are supporters; the rest of us are not, and many are not even American.
Not that it is surprising for a conspiracist to stand reality on its head in such a manner.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Apr 9, 2007 13:22:11 GMT -4
It's her View, It's been suppressed for a long time.By who? Donald Trump? People like Fetzer and others have been making claims in public for years; where is the evidence of suppression of some silly talk-show host? The same way we are suppressing it, by not agreeing with it. I hope my answer above will help with this definition ;D This will have no effect. . .
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 9, 2007 15:16:43 GMT -4
[vb]Well you know after reading the latest New Civil Engineer article you will see that [/b] You mean the one that was last updated in July 2005? [/quote] Well, the article is published in date of 9.04.07 . Don't believe me its writed on top of the page. ;D tinyurl.com/f4hkcAmong other interesting constatations UK report anticipated NIST calls tinyurl.com/f4hkcVirtually all conclusions in NIST’s official report into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers were reached in the UK three years ago, engineers said this week. A major report Safety in tall buildings was published in July 2002, just 10 months after the towers collapsed (NCE 11 July 2002) by an Institution of Structural Engineers-led panel which included ICE senior vice president and Jacobs Babtie director Gordon Masterton. Its recommendations are similar to those published by NIST. These included calls for buildings to be designed to survive complete burn out, include “robust, resilient and durable passive fire protection” and allow large-scale evacuation. It also called for regular independent audits of fire protection systems. “The interesting thing is that the more you read the more it looks similar to what we did in the UK after 9/11,” said Masterton. “Of the 30 recommendations 24 are identical messages to those contained in our report,” he said. “It made me quite proud that what we produced in eight months at no cost contains recommendations so similar to a $16M (£8.8M) investigation that has taken four years to come to its conclusions.”
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 9, 2007 15:31:10 GMT -4
The date at the top is just today's date. It will say 10.04.07 tomorrow... At the bottom of the text you can see Last updated: 6/07/05 Report No: 6937, i.e., July 6 2005. (The U.S. date convention of M/D/Y would make it by June 7 2005, but that's neither here nor there.)
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 9, 2007 17:28:55 GMT -4
UK report anticipated NIST calls
What is your point here?
"Of the 30 recommendations 24 are identical messages to those contained in our report,"; he said.
Many of the recommendations were likely obvious to structural and fire-protection professionals without a large amount of in-depth analysis. Some may not have been, however.
It made me quite proud that what we produced in eight months at no cost contains recommendations so similar to a $16M (£8.8M) investigation that has taken four years to come to its conclusions.
The British could just have gotten lucky on some of their recommendations, or more likely, they intuitively drew many conclusions that were correct, but were later confirmed by NIST's more in-depth analysis.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 9, 2007 18:51:18 GMT -4
It's her View, It's been suppressed for a long time.By who? Donald Trump? People like Fetzer and others have been making claims in public for years; where is the evidence of suppression of some silly talk-show host? This must be some new definition of "suppressed" with which I'm not familiar. Apparently it now means "allowed to freely bellow claims of conspiracy and mass murder against the President/VP/CIA/FBI/FAA/DoD/and let's not forget NASA". By the way, ridicule is not the same as "suppression". For years we on the other side have watched your sides fat faced bloviator ridicule and yell at anyone who dared question the Emperors theory.When I read this, I thought "Bill O'Reilly"? But I guess you mean VP Cheney. And the answer is, he's not "mine". I didn't vote for him; I don't like him, his policies, his lies (such as the Iraq/al Qaeda connection pre-invasion, which he is still pushing), or his culture of secrecy and arrogance. He has done a great deal of harm, in my opinion, to our national interests. It is sheer rubbish implying that all, or even most of us, must be some sort of devotees of the current Administration because we don't believe they were behind 9/11. There are maybe two regulars here who are supporters; the rest of us are not, and many are not even American. Not that it is surprising for a conspiracist to stand reality on its head in such a manner. At first I thought I made a typo, but no. I clearly said the Emperors theory. How does that make you think I'm calling you a bush supporter? I didn't call him your Emperor or Gillian's Emperor. BTW, I'm a subject too, even though I'm living in provincial outpost. You must be kidding about the open and honest US, or should I say Anglo alliance media, even the bloviator was questioning the silence over Rorie's statements. It goes much deeper than that though. This video from Willie sums it up. For the Truth movement one year ago getting yelled at and ridiculed by Oreilly was seen as huge breakthrough, so Bills method of suppression was ridicule and it always backfired. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2028584185822206796&hl=en
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 9, 2007 21:48:15 GMT -4
I remember something about the sagging and bracing of the floor trusses .But even if I have added it to my first resume that will not have satisfied you either.Right?It's a heck of a lot closer that your first attempt I'll give you that. It is something to do with the sagging tusses. Note this from your copy and paste That is the offically proposed collapse mechanism. Now can you see why the Cardington Tests and the NIST tests are so relevant? What they have shown is the under the heat of an office fire, that the steel (trusses in the NIST test and beams in the Cardington test) sagged dramatically placing stress on the exterior. This sagging is actually created from three things. First the metal expands, but since it is held rigid at both ends the extra length has to go somewhere. Because the heated metal is softer, it bows there easier, and the weight of the concrete pulls it down. This is backed up not only by the Fire Tests, but by photos of the WTC when the floor trusses can be seen through the windows to have sagged down over the time of the fire. Now instead of providing the support that transfers load between the primeter and the core, the trusses are dead weight applying a lateral force to the columns which themselves have been heated (thus suffering from expansion and softening as well) which bowed them inwards (this inward bowing of the primeter columns is dramatically seen in both photos and video taken of the Towers prior to the collapse.) As the columns bowed inwards they lost the ability to support the floors above. You can show this with a straw. Stand it on your desk top and press down on it with one finger so that it has force on it, but isn't deforming. Now use your other hand to add a lateral force by pushing the middle of the straw into a bow. What happens when it passes a certain point? The straw collapses, right? This is what the primeter columns did, and as each failed, it passed on it's load to it's neighbouring columns. Because their load now dramatically increased, they failed, and passed their load and so on all the way about the face of the building. Of course once enough columns had failed, the top of the building started moving, which we saw as a tilt as one face of the building gave way. Fractions of a second later the progressing column failure had literally unzipped the top floors from the bottom, and with the final remaining support totally unable to do so, the only thing holding it up the top of the building was gravity, so it did what all things do when in that situation, it dropped, the columns slicing through the floor below and forcing the primeter columns outwards, a result that started a massive pancaking. The pancaking was a result of the collapse, not the cause. Can you understand this occurance? Note here I'm wanting to know if you understand it, not if you agree with it, not if you can find papers that disagree with it, but just that you can understand what it is that is proposed to have happened and why it is proposed. Do you understand that there are photos that show the sagging floors and the bowed columns that this theory uses? Images, video, and more on the collapse
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 9, 2007 21:59:34 GMT -4
Your hat truss malarkey all stems from removed insulation. The NIST is quite clear that the towers would have remained standing had not those super fires ruined everything.
The final mechanism had nothing to do with the hat truss. That was a proposed mechanism that was tested previously, but was not the final one, which I have discussed above.
As to the insulation, in fact NIST's conclusions showed that without the fire's being fought, and with the damage already sustained, even if the fireproofing had remained completely intact, the tower's would still have fallen, it just would have taken longer, about two to three hours as opposed to one. The problem wasn't the removal of the fire retardant, though that certainly speed up the collapse, but that the heated trusses expanded and sagged, causing serious lateral stresses on the perimeter columns resulting in them being dragged inwards and bowing until they couldn't hold up their loading.
The fire retardant surviving the crash (which a lot of it didn't as evidenced by the fire marks on the steel itself) would have just slowed the heating of the truss steel, and so the sagging would have occurred slower allowing the towers to stand, but NIST's tests with full sized fully fireproofed truss units showed that the result was inevitable once the fires started, it was merely a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 9, 2007 22:08:25 GMT -4
Well, the article is published in date of 9.04.07 . Don't believe me its writed on top of the page
No the banner at the top of the page displays the current date (which is now the 10th). The date of the page revision is at the bottom. The 6th of July, 2005. (assuming British date standard since it's a UK page)
As to the second article, if independant Engineers in the UK come to the same conculsions as NIST did, and did so 3 years earlier, then surely that is proof that NIST's report is pretty close to right. What you have just done, feelfree222, is to post independent agreement and verifacation of NIST's work. Or are you going to claim that those UK Engineers were all in on it too?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 9, 2007 23:17:09 GMT -4
I remember something about the sagging and bracing of the floor trusses .But even if I have added it to my first resume that will not have satisfied you either.Right?It's a heck of a lot closer that your first attempt I'll give you that. It is something to do with the sagging tusses. Note this from your copy and paste That is the offically proposed collapse mechanism. I know that. Now can you see why the Cardington Tests and the NIST tests are so relevant? What they have shown is the under the heat of an office fire, that the steel (trusses in the NIST test and beams in the Cardington test) sagged dramatically placing stress on the exterior. This sagging is actually created from three things. First the metal expands, but since it is held rigid at both ends the extra length has to go somewhere. Because the heated metal is softer, it bows there easier, and the weight of the concrete pulls it down. This is backed up not only by the Fire Tests, but by photos of the WTC when the floor trusses can be seen through the windows to have sagged down over the time of the fire. Now instead of providing the support that transfers load between the primeter and the core, the trusses are dead weight applying a lateral force to the columns which themselves have been heated (thus suffering from expansion and softening as well) which bowed them inwards (this inward bowing of the primeter columns is dramatically seen in both photos and video taken of the Towers prior to the collapse.) As the columns bowed inwards they lost the ability to support the floors above. You can show this with a straw. Stand it on your desk top and press down on it with one finger so that it has force on it, but isn't deforming. Now use your other hand to add a lateral force by pushing the middle of the straw into a bow. What happens when it passes a certain point? The straw collapses, right? This is what the primeter columns did, and as each failed, it passed on it's load to it's neighbouring columns. Because their load now dramatically increased, they failed, and passed their load and so on all the way about the face of the building. Of course once enough columns had failed, the top of the building started moving, which we saw as a tilt as one face of the building gave way. Fractions of a second later the progressing column failure had literally unzipped the top floors from the bottom, and with the final remaining support totally unable to do so, the only thing holding it up the top of the building was gravity, so it did what all things do when in that situation, it dropped, the columns slicing through the floor below and forcing the primeter columns outwards, a result that started a massive pancaking. The pancaking was a result of the collapse, not the cause. Can you understand this occurance? Note here I'm wanting to know if you understand it, not if you agree with it, not if you can find papers that disagree with it, but just that you can understand what it is that is proposed to have happened and why it is proposed. Do you understand that there are photos that show the sagging floors and the bowed columns that this theory uses? Images, video, and more on the collapseI wish that my English second language be better Of course i understand what you describe.That is my hability caused by the fact that English is not my first language to perfectly resume the process which is in cause. But only one point remain nebulous. How the weldings which attached the floor trusses connections to the steel pillars have resisted to that treatment ?BTW I have never received a response when I have asked this on A Structural Engineer cast doubt on NIST version thread. edited for spelling and precision.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 10, 2007 3:02:08 GMT -4
How the weldings which attached the floor trusses connections to the steel pillars have resisted to that treatment ?
Well they weren't welded on. The trusses were sat into connectors that were basically a peice of steel folded into a shape like a U. Those were welded and bolted to the columns. Initially (In the FEMA) report, it was assumed that these had failed first, basically unfolding and dropping the truss, thus leading to the idea of the pancaking causing the collapse. NIST showed that they had not failed but held, allowing the trusses to pull on the columns as they deformed and that the pancaking was a result of the collapse, not the the cause.
|
|