Creative Speculation
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)The official NIST report says that the damage caused by the collapse of the other towers started fires but was not a factor in the collapse of WTC 7
WTC7 Fast and Furious
Summary from NCSTAR 1A WTC 7 Investigation (PDF) http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
"...Thus, WTC7 did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns"...
"...Temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7"...
"...The thermal expansion of the WTC7 floor beams...occurred primarily at temperatures below ~750 °F"...
A self-cleaning oven is an oven which uses high temperature approximately 500° Celsius (900° Fahrenheit) to burn off leftovers from baking, without the use of any chemical agents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_oven
Temperature summary from NIST NCSTAR 1A
http://imgur.com/XfqGLMF
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)I think I'm missing something here...
William Seger
(10,779 posts)If an architect who doesn't understand structural mechanics turns to another architect who doesn't understand structural mechanics, Richard Gage, to understand why the towers fell -- instead of, say, asking the engineers who actually designed the structure of the projects either of them worked on -- I have to think he's only looking for confirmation of his own speculations. His assertion that AE911truth is just objectively trying to figure out what happened is self-serving bullshit; AE911truth is a controlled demolition cult, period, and Richard Gage is a conspiracy huckster who can't seem to find any actual experts to substantiate his claims.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)go with the architects & physics professors over some unknown DU poster citing sophistry all the time. 
William Seger
(10,779 posts)... Zhou, Eagar, Szuladzinski, Seffen, Greening, and many dozens of other experts who have published peer-reviewed journal articles about the collapse, not to mention the dozens of private-industry experts who worked on the NIST reports. Instead, you'd rather "go with" a high-school physics teacher who doesn't understand physics and architects who say absurd gibberish like "the temperature would need to exceed the yield strength" (Stephen Barasch in your previous video).
Anyway, Gage sees to think you don't know the difference between an architect and a structural engineer. Is that true?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)made himself look like a fool!
William Seger
(10,779 posts)... who doesn't understand Newton's Third Law, or at least doesn't understand why his attempt at apply it to the WTC collapse ought to include the mass and inertia of the debris layer itself, which acted on the lower block but not the upper block. What this video really proves is that Bazant is more observant than these "truther scientists," and it doesn't take a physicist to see what they're missing. Jones also seems to be unaware that Bazant's actual argument, based on actual quantitative analysis which structural engineers seem to understand quite well, was that the structure could not possibly absorb the energy that was unleashed. If any competent structural engineer could show that Bazant's analysis is wrong about that, he or she would immediately become very famous. Instead, we get "Newton's Third Law" and "missing jolt" horseshit, and you still don't understand why experts don't take "truthers" seriously.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)sorry you can't seem to grasp conservation of momentum!
William Seger
(10,779 posts)... to understand how it explains why the buildings fell so fast, which seems to be a mystery to the two architects that you posted videos of. I also understand what's wrong with this nonsense from this video:
> "Most people don't realize that World Trade Centers 1,2, and 7 did not slow down when they fell."
Excuse me, but what I realize is that they DID slow down, and thanks to those "careful measurements" by David Chandler, we can say that WTC 1 slowed down to an average of 67% of freefall. What I also realize (and what I very recently explained to you, to no apparent avail) is that the 67% is an average including periods of actual freefall after columns and floor connections failed, and that only magic fairy dust could possibly explain the "uniform" 67% acceleration that Chandler fakes by simply drawing a straight line through his points. Even we anonymous internet posters can see through this bullshit, and yet you still can't figure out why actual experts don't take "truthers" seriously.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)"...instead of, say, asking the engineers who actually designed the structure of the projects either of them worked on..."
William Seger
(10,779 posts)In the first place, no, the buildings were not "designed to withstand alrline jet impacts." They were designed to withstand the expected "live" loading on the floors and the expected wind loading in Manhattan. However, that design was then subjected to an analysis which took an educated guess at the structural damage that would be done by an airliner impact and analyzed the behavior of the remaining structure. That analysis concluded that the building should remain standing, and in fact that's exactly what happened, twice, on 9/11. Until the fires. The designers' analysis didn't include any fire effects because, back then, there was no way to quantitatively analyze fire damage. The designers didn't have the hardware or the software to run the kind of fire simulations that NIST ran (and which "truthers" dismiss, anyway), or the ability to feed such analysis into a structural simulation. For fireproofing, the designers just followed the prevailing building codes; there was no extra fireproofing or any measures taken to prevent airliner damage to fireproofing.
Is this the first time you've heard this, or just the latest time that you've dismissed it?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)shit! Go tell it to someone fool enough to fall for it.
William Seger
(10,779 posts)Leslie Robertson was the lead structural engineer on the WTC project and also the engineer who did the airliner impact study your video refers to.
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringandHomelandSecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)who admitted molten steel! hmmmm.
William Seger
(10,779 posts)... which he assumed was molten steel, for some strange reason. It's a pity that neither he nor anyone else seems to have recovered any molten metal and had it analyzed, but nonetheless it's completely irrelevant to what we were discussing.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)in the form of iron spheres in all the dust that dissipated! Try again!
William Seger
(10,779 posts)... (by default) that you have no idea how or when those microspheres were produced, so it would seem that you are the one who needs to try again. Or just run around the barn again, your choice.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)try again!
they were in the dust that entered Mrs. Mackinlay's apartment in the dust cloud!
William Seger
(10,779 posts)... but the more important point is that even if true, you still have no idea when or how those microspheres were produced. The one thing we know for sure is that Truther Scientists who claim that only thermite can produce iron microspheres like those are pretty shitty scientists.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)we know it will never change. You have only convinced yourself if that even.
William Seger
(10,779 posts)... seems to get smaller with every passing year, perhaps because the best they can do is to keep shoveling the same bullshit that's been debunked a hundred times, apparently hoping that maybe this time nobody will point out why it's bullshit. Good luck with that.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)the we is growing! Architects & Engineers are up to 2000 and more all the time. And more people that ever know the government line on 911 is bull shit.
And nothing has been debunked, only denied. But keep repeating it maybe some day it will be true.
