Scientific fraud? The failure of NIST's progressive collapse theory to explain WTC collapses

127 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2010-03-27 20:53

jas

A continuation of this thread.

Note: This is a thread to discuss the lack of accepted physical principles found in the progressive collapse theory of the WTC collapses, and the lack of scientific validity (and integrity) evident in NIST's methodology and its report on the WTC. This thread is in the Humanities & Sciences forum. I ask posters on both sides of this issue to limit their comments to the topic at hand and to limit criticism to the [i]analyses presented[/i] rather than, for example, attempting to impugn the character of the authors cited.

If you wish to comment, I would ask that you also make some effort to read the articles presented for discussion (below) and situate your comments in some kind of common-sense understanding of physics and/or accepted physical principles.

Finally, if this is a topic that you dislike or disapprove of, I don't care. Ignore this thread or go start your own, but don't dump in this one. Thanks.

Sat, 2010-03-27 23:56

jas

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

(downloadable)

and

The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7

Quote:

One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns. In other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth. This former NIST employee's statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency. The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case.

According to the National Science Foundation, the major types of scientific fraud are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. There is no sign that NIST is guilty of plagiarism, but it is certainly guilty of fabrication, which can be defined as "making up results", and falsification, which means either "changing or omitting data." [13]

Sat, 2010-03-27 23:57

jas

just editing...

Sun, 2010-03-28 01:39

Mike Stirner

I've not read up much on this truther thing but I do have to say one thing that makes you lean on the side of conspiracy is comparing 1920s-40s era buildings in Japan that were still standing after you what to a 1960s-70s era structure.

Sun, 2010-03-28 02:39

milo204

it seems like all the theories that it was an inside job are just that--theories. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any kind, just doubts. all the evidence of an "inside job" seems to be quite refutable one way or another. Also, if this was in fact an inside job, i think something would have leaked by now.

i don't rule it out, but it seems very unlikely. and besides, there's more than enough reason to oppose the US on a host of issues whether they pulled off 9/11 or not. They've done way worse to others that we CAN prove. And in a way they've done even worse to their own citizens through their policies. they killed 3,000 at the WTC, but how many has the US killed in iraq/afghanistan? it's probably over a million now.

Sun, 2010-03-28 05:35

Fidel

[drift]

Milo204, there have been US government whistleblowers, and 9/11 Commissioners themselves whove said it was a coverup and that they were lied to during the half-baked investigation. More than one-thousand architects and engineers with a combined 25,000 years of experience just aren't buying what a handful of US government scientists have tried to sell to the public.

milo204 wrote:
i don't rule it out, but it seems very unlikely. and besides, there's more than enough reason to oppose the US on a host of issues whether they pulled off 9/11 or not. They've done way worse to others that we CAN prove. And in a way they've done even worse to their own citizens through their policies. they killed 3,000 at the WTC, but how many has the US killed in iraq/afghanistan? it's probably over a million now.

Yes they have done far worse. But 9/11 effects Americans directly. And both of the bipartisan war parties are implicated in having pulled a false flag. It's [url=http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20100219211117311]not wild conspiracy theory when governments have admitted to plotting and carrying out false flag terror in recent history[/url] 9/11 inside job is not as far fetched as apologists for crazy george bush's neocons care to admit. There was false flag in Istanbul as recently as 2008. The German BND was caught red-handed setting off a bomb in Kosovo very recently. The US was the ringleader when it came to NATO false flags during the cold war. Five of the supposed 19 "pious Muslim hijackers" were trained in terror on US soil at high security military facilities - provided with US entry visas during the CIA's years of dirty war in Afghanistan and in the years after 1992 as well. If you look at it, milo, the whole think stinks to high heaven. Truthers know why both Lib-Dems and Republicons want to avoid a real investigation like the plague.

The point is, Milo, that too many Americans(and Canadians) don't care about the imperialism perpetrated in other countries as long as their lives are good or even made better by the imperialism in general. Scary scenario for those in the comfort zone is that the people they vote for might be implicated in mas murder of American and Canadian citizens on 9/11. A lot of them couldn't stomach knowing that American and Canadian citizens were sacrificed for the sake of imperialism abroad. And the issue has divided not only the ruling elite in America but the ruling class as well. Don't listen to deniers. What they have to say is a babbling brook of bullshit. They don't know what theyre talking about most of the time. Truthers won't always have it right either, but I think what they have to say is a lot closer to the truth.[/undrift]

Sun, 2010-03-28 09:50

Salsa

Jas, Why do you insist on making this an issue about science when it's clearly obvious that you're not interested in the science at all and are strictly motivated towards 911 truth for political reasons? All the "science" approach does is make the Left look like idiots considering the science truthers present is flawed.

What you need to do is shriek and wail, post stuff about the Nazis, blather on about neocons, post funny pictures of Bush, and generally carry on about AmeriKKKa so you can make your point through hate, rather than reason.

You want to use DRG as a source of science? Well here's some REAL science.

Sun, 2010-03-28 11:51

al-Qa'bong

The way this topic is being treated on babble is kind of funny, well, if one doesn't mind babble being treated as a sister version of the Weekly World News this would be funny.

All that the previous thread proved is that these "truthers" aren't as interested in science as they claim. After I read their complaints that nobody posted scientific evidence to prove them wrong, I went to a peer-reviewed engineering journal and picked one of dozens of articles that debunked their hocus-pocus Fox Mulderite "argument" and posted it. Their response was to post photoshopped images of George Bush.

We could make the "truthers" a deal. We'll avoid these wacko 9-11 conspiracy threads as long as you quit mentioning your conspiracy fetishes in other threads.

What do you say?

Sun, 2010-03-28 14:19

Fidel

I think Jas asked politely that those babblers who are pro-Bush war criminals side of things not post insulting bafflegab in this thread. If you have to use derogatory terms like whacko to state your case, then I think you should just admit that the topic is unsettling for you - you're not sure why - and then just move on to another thread where you think you might be more able to contribute something useful.

Sun, 2010-03-28 17:08

#10

jas

Salsa wrote:

All the "science" approach does is make the Left look like idiots considering the science truthers present is flawed.

Actually, what it does is make the naysayers look silly, such as your above statement.

It's a pretty simple request, guys. Why can't you meet it? I know why. Because you don't have an answer based on science. One doesn't exist. But what possible stake do you have in your attempts to invalidate this? If you don't even understand the so-called science of the theory you pretend to defend, I would suggest this topic is none of your business.

I'm not sure I'll be responding to such comments in the future. Show me the science or get out of the game.

Sun, 2010-03-28 17:12

#11

E.P.Houle

Yes, we must "move on". After all our plates are full and we are reasonable people. It's just all these 800 pound gorillas and ignored elephants in the room keep bumping my elbows. The insurance scam at the towers is enough to strain credibility but no, insurance companies always pay out billions in quick order; there is no crime to be proven there.

Sun, 2010-03-28 17:14

#12

jas

It might also be useful to discuss why certain Babble posters are blatantly lying or disregarding obvious facts in this issue. For example, in the last thread:

I said:

Quote:

Please just look at the picture:

How is this severely compromised "mass", a tiny fraction of the bulk of the building, able to crush down through 70 (or is it 90) floors at nearly the speed of gravity? It can't.

Obviously, by the picture, we are looking at WTC1, so it is 90 floors.

HeywoodFloyd announced:

Quote:

Well, it did. And it isn't a tiny fraction. It's between [b]a quarter and a third of the bulk of the building [/b] siginficantly damaged and lacking structural integrity at the fire and impact locations.

Also, it isn't the whole building that it has to crush through. Just the next floor down.

implying that this fire-ravaged top fraction of the building was pulled down by gravity through 90 intact floors [i]at the speed of gravity.[/i]

It should be obvious to everyone here that this is physically impossible. Since Heywood has demonstrated a rather sketchy grasp of physics in other threads, is there anyone here who would care to explain what principle of physics would explain and confirm Heywood's preposterous notion – using this visual evidence?

If, like I suspect, no self-respecting defender of science would attempt to make such a claim, then it has to be asked: what are these denier Babblers doing in these threads? They don't understand the science. Why are they trying to defend an indefensible theory? What personal stake could they possibly have in this?

Sun, 2010-03-28 17:18

#13

jas

By the way, here is the link of those pictures again:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/02/10/12825831.html

Sun, 2010-03-28 17:25

#14

jas

Lawyers for 9/11 truth.

Sun, 2010-03-28 17:48

#15

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
I think Jas asked politely that those babblers who are pro-Bush war criminals side of things not post insulting bafflegab in this thread.

Do you seriously wonder why you're considered a looney-tune?

I don't find the topic "unsettling," but I'll move on.

Do we have a deal?

Sun, 2010-03-28 18:32

#16

aka Mycroft

Quote:
Finally, if this is a topic that you dislike or disapprove of, I don't care. Ignore this thread or go start your own, but don't dump in this one. Thanks.

So you're encouraging debate on this topic by discouraging any views that disagree with yours?

Sun, 2010-03-28 18:32

#17

jas

al-Qa'bong wrote:

After I read their complaints that nobody posted scientific evidence to prove them wrong, I went to a peer-reviewed engineering journal and picked one of dozens of articles that debunked their hocus-pocus Fox Mulderite "argument" and posted it.

You mean, after you posted numerous nonsense posts? Then we're supposed to take you seriously?

By the way, al-Q, where were those links again? I'm just getting nonsense pages.

Also, how would you be able to evaluate that the (for the time being fictitious) articles you cite "debunked" anything? Do you even understand anything that they're saying?

Sun, 2010-03-28 18:37

#18

jas

aka Mycroft wrote:

So you're encouraging debate on this topic by discouraging any views that disagree with yours?

I think it's pretty clear in the OP, Mycroft, that I am asking for explanations based in real world science, just like the anti-homeopathy brigade demand every time they start some new anti-homeopathy thread for public flogging. I am also asking people who have some fetish against 9/11 inquiry to either stay out of the thread or post their objections elsewhere. Not sure what's difficult about that.

Sun, 2010-03-28 18:44

#19

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:
I think Jas asked politely that those babblers who are pro-Bush war criminals side of things not post insulting bafflegab in this thread.

Do you seriously wonder why you're considered a looney-tune?

I don't find the topic "unsettling," but I'll move on.

Do we have a deal?

How old are you, twelve?

Sun, 2010-03-28 18:52

#20

jas

Quote:

Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” [12]

Sun, 2010-03-28 18:54

#21

jas

More from the Griffin article:

Quote:

For those few people who were paying attention, the mysteriousness of this collapse was not lessened by the first official report about it, which was issued by FEMA in 2002. This report put forward what it called its “best hypothesis” as to why the building collapsed, but then added that this hypothesis had “only a low probability of occurrence.” [5]

This FEMA report, in fact, increased the mystery, thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese. [6] James Glanz, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”[7]

....

The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18]

But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]

Sun, 2010-03-28 19:44

#22

Fidel

jas wrote:

Quote:

Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]

An agency of the Dubya-Cheney admin lied about climate science? In the era of dubya science in America?

Apparently apologists for the Bush era war criminals are the same nutters denying climate science and 9/11 truth. They are in good company for sure.

[url=http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/scientists-... Scientist Statement on Restoring Scientific Integrity to Federal Policy Making[/url]

Quote:
The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. "Clear Skies" would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences...

And yes, [url=http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/solutions/big_picture_solutio...'s quite a lengthy list of signatories[/url]

[url=http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/a-to-z-alph... to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science[/url]

They lied about WMD in Iraq, and lied about Iraq since "nurse Nayirah" under crazy George I.

They lied about climate science.

They just didn't say anything about anticommunist jihadis still on the payroll from the 1980s and 90's...and they lied about 9/11.

In fact, they are established pathological liars. And the whackos call us crazy.

Sun, 2010-03-28 20:00

#23

jas

Did NIST really claim that not a single piece of steel had been recovered? In direct contradiction to the WTC7 steel that was the subject of the report from Worcester Polytechnic Institute? I had to check this claim myself from Griffins references.

Here is James Glanz's report from January of 2002:

Quote:
Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.

A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.

Indeed, here is the report (pdf) by the professors at WPI. And, indeed, they conclude that future study is needed to determine the cause of it.

But what did NIST say?

Quote:

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?
In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel...

So the steel that the WPI scientists had studied "does not exist" in NIST's report. Is this good science?

Sun, 2010-03-28 22:18

#24

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

It might also be useful to discuss why certain Babble posters are blatantly lying or disregarding obvious facts in this issue. For example, in the last thread:

I said:

Quote:

Please just look at the picture:

How is this severely compromised "mass", a tiny fraction of the bulk of the building, able to crush down through 70 (or is it 90) floors at nearly the speed of gravity? It can't.

Obviously, by the picture, we are looking at WTC1, so it is 90 floors.

HeywoodFloyd announced:

Quote:

Well, it did. And it isn't a tiny fraction. It's between [b]a quarter and a third of the bulk of the building [/b] siginficantly damaged and lacking structural integrity at the fire and impact locations.

Also, it isn't the whole building that it has to crush through. Just the next floor down.

implying that this fire-ravaged top fraction of the building was pulled down by gravity through 90 intact floors [i]at the speed of gravity.[/i]

It should be obvious to everyone here that this is physically impossible. Since Heywood has demonstrated a rather sketchy grasp of physics in other threads, is there anyone here who would care to explain what principle of physics would explain and confirm Heywood's preposterous notion – using this visual evidence?

If, like I suspect, no self-respecting defender of science would attempt to make such a claim, then it has to be asked: what are these denier Babblers doing in these threads? They don't understand the science. Why are they trying to defend an indefensible theory? What personal stake could they possibly have in this?

1. Fuck you with the personal attacks and implications.

2. You bolded the portion which bolsters your misguided argument, while ignoring the important one. Those damaged floors didn't have to fall through 90+ floors (although they did in the end). They only had to fall through one floor for the collapse to begin. Which is what happened.

3. I'm now done with you. You're quote-mining and mis-stating my positions, which tells me that you have no interest in what I have to say except where you can use it to bolster your loony-tune positions. I honestly had hope that you were more reasonable that your stunned-fuck-moron compatriots but I see now that I was as misguided in that hope as you are with your theories.

4. Just in case I wasn't clear with point 1: Fuck you with the personal attacks and implications.

Sun, 2010-03-28 22:27

#25

Fidel

Why can't they just say, Buck Fush! Because that phrase is popular with scientists everywhere.

Sun, 2010-03-28 22:50

#26

Papal Bull

Fidel wrote:

Why can't they just say, Buck Fush! Because that phrase is popular with scientists everywhere.

But not for reasons relating to Newtons and Potential Energy and other sciency things. They do it for less truthy reasons than this.

But I'm just a war criminal/CIA plant, so what do I know?

Sun, 2010-03-28 22:54

#27

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

1. Fuck you with the personal attacks and implications.

2. You bolded the portion which bolsters your misguided argument, while ignoring the important one. Those damaged floors didn't have to fall through 90+ floors (although they did in the end). They only had to fall through one floor for the collapse to begin. Which is what happened.

3. I'm now done with you. You're quote-mining and mis-stating my positions, which tells me that you have no interest in what I have to say except where you can use it to bolster your loony-tune positions. I honestly had hope that you were more reasonable that your stunned-fuck-moron compatriots but I see now that I was as misguided in that hope as you are with your theories.

4. Just in case I wasn't clear with point 1: Fuck you with the personal attacks and implications.

Heywood, if you're going to wilfully ignore your grade ten physics and pretend that 91 floors are the same as 1 floor, and that a fire-ravaged fraction of 12 floors can plummet through 91 floors at the rate of free fall with no energy lost in its displacement of each successive floor (never mind how a weakened section can possibly displace a far larger intact section) you kinda do deserve to be ridiculed. And I say that because I don't believe you really believe this. It's too stupid. I believe you're trolling. You're just putting up arguments for the sake of being oppositional and ignoring obvious physical impossibilities. In addition, you refuse to accept that significant energy is lost in displacing each level. Plus you were claiming that the building pancaked when not even NIST suggests this anymore.

What part of your argument do you think I should take seriously?

Sun, 2010-03-28 23:58

#28

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Um, yeah. It is. Batshit insane, actually.

You did ask.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:00

#29

jas

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:03

#30

Bubbles

Jas, have you ever been in the bush and made a fire with sticks you find on the forest floor and try to break them in suitable sized pieces? What happens when you come across a piece that is to strong for you to break with your hands? You apply kinetic forces, by leaning the wood against a tree trunk and jumping on it. Mass in motion, you drop 550lbs one foot in one second, you do the equivalent work of a one horse engine. I am not sure how heavy those ten floors were or the distance between the floors. If you have that info then you can make yourself a picture of the power that brought that tower down.

Looking at the video of one of those towers goig down I had the impression that the floors sheared away fro the main columns. A bit like standing on a long ladder and the rung you stand on breaks and youbreak through all the subsequent rungs till the ground and your body convert that kinetic energy into deformation.

Heywood explained it fairly well and in my opinion you own him an apology.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:09

#31

aka Mycroft

Funny how the JFK connspiracy theory has become passe. Does that mean we can expect the kooks to drone on about 9/11 for another few decades until another world historical event comes along to distract them?

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:10

#32

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

jas wrote:

.

Ah. Very clever. You got me. Mortally wounded.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:13

#33

Fidel

Papal Bull wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Why can't they just say, Buck Fush! Because that phrase is popular with scientists everywhere.

But not for reasons relating to Newtons and Potential Energy and other sciency things. They do it for less truthy reasons than this.

So are you a climate science denier like NIST was under Dubya?

Quote:
But I'm just a war criminal/CIA plant, so what do I know?

No just someone who agrees a lot with team dubya, but only when it comes to 9/11!! They were lying their heads off all those other times, right? Or are they not war criminals and just really naive warmongering plutocrats who experienced a serious lack of better overall judgement before, during, and after 9/11? I think the Nazis at Nuremberg tried to plead stupidity, too. It didn't work, because they weren't running things at that point including the transparent and accountable investigative trial for war crimes itself.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:24

#34

jas

Bubbles, thank you for attempting to engage some of the science. Even if that were true, those 90 and 70 floors would still provide resistance and slow the rate of descent. You can't pulverize a floor without expending some energy annd without it taking some time, which would acumulate at each successive step. A building would not collapse in under 15 seconds. It wouldn't collapse in under a minute, either, probably.

Think of it this way: if mere weakening of a section of a building (a top section, no less) were all that were sufficient to bring down a highrise, why is there even a demolition industry? If all you have to do is knock out an upper floor of a building, and it pulverizes into itself, why set charges all up and down the length of a building in real life controlled demolition?

And the floors are 12 feet high.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:27

#35

jas

Timebandit wrote:

Ah. Very clever. You got me. Mortally wounded.

Hey, if 91 floors of the World Trade Centre can disintegrate in under 15 seconds, I guess one of my posts can, too.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:41

#36

Bubbles

But jas, the pulverizing of the concrete is easy to explain. In a high structure like that most concrete will be relatively thin, to save weight, also concrete is brittle and by virtue of its hight above ground it has probably enough potential energy to self destruct. Throw a concrete block from a 55 story building on the sidewalk below and I would be surprised if it was not pulverized.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:42

#37

Fidel

jas wrote:
Hey, if 91 floors of the World Trade Centre can disintegrate in under 15 seconds, I guess one of my posts can, too.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Only if Newton's 3rd law of motion doesn't apply to falling buildings, which deniers claim, and somewhat incredibly, was the case.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:45

#38

jas

Plus your analogy isn't completely true, Bubbles. You are describing a concentrated impact from above. In the case of the towers, the floors that gave way first were above the impact zone, crushing down onto the damaged floors of the impact zone. If that compromised mass were still able to displace the succession of intact floors below it, it would still be encountering large volumes of matter, matter that a descending block of floors that are also disintegrating at the same time, can't merely eject out of the way at or near the speed of free fall. There's a lot of intervening matter in 90 floors before you get to the bottom.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:48

#39

Fidel

But if the upper block of floors was pulverized as videos show, then that should disperse overall downward forces not remain the same as if a solid mass falling through a mass of material five times greater below it. It makes no sense unless youre afraid of losing your government job and pension during what was a Bush II era of bad science in general.

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:49

#40

jas

Throwing a block of concrete 55 floors is not the same as dropping it 12 feet, Bubbles.

And I haven't heard anything about "thin" and "brittle" concrete. Are there some new facts you're bringing to the situation?

Mon, 2010-03-29 00:50

#41

remind

jas wrote:
If all you have to do is knock out an upper floor of a building, and it pulverizes into itself, why set charges all up and down the length of a building in real life controlled demolition?

Excellent question, and I for one would like to hear a response that is other than mocking, or a personal attack.

Mon, 2010-03-29 01:04

#42

Fidel

Yes, excellent question, Jas.

Bubbles wrote:

But jas, the pulverizing of the concrete is easy to explain. In a high structure like that most concrete will be relatively thin, to save weight, also concrete is brittle and by virtue of its hight above ground it has probably enough potential energy to self destruct. Throw a concrete block from a 55 story building on the sidewalk below and I would be surprised if it was not pulverized.

The floors weren't made of cement blocks. The floors were made of poured concrete with steel reinforcing bar inside the concrete to give it strength. Some buildings have long steel rods that go through concast flooring have big bolts with big nuts on the ends around the perimeter and are tightened using big torque wrenches to provide added tensile strength. Less material more strength with steel reinforcing

Mon, 2010-03-29 01:20

#43

jas

Thanks remind and Fidel.

Mon, 2010-03-29 01:40

#44

Bubbles

I am not a structural engineer, but I suspect that a high building like that is mostly made from steel with thin concrete floors supported by corrugated steel. The concrete would mainly be there to dampen sound and vibration. But if you have info to the contrary I will accept that.

I am not sure if we can use the demolition of high rises as a comparison. The WTC was a tat more complex then your average highrise.

Mon, 2010-03-29 01:59

#45

Fidel

Corrugated tin is used to build shanty towns in uncle Sam's backyard. Some capitalist made a sweetheart deal with corrupt thirdworld client states a long time ago.

Reinforced concrete with steel rebar and even tension rods works like this. For example, you have a book shelf with ten text books all in a row cover to cover. If you spread your arms and try to pick up ten books with your hands and all at once, you have to use two hands and squeeze tightly together while picking them up, otherwise they drop out of your hands. Now, drill a hole through the middle of all of the books in a straight line, and insert a threaded bolt through all of the books so as threads are exposed on both side of the ten books. Now put washers and nuts on the threaded ends and tighten. The books aren't loose anymore and can be picked up in the middle or ends, and they don't fall out of your hands. It's the same with steel reinforced concrete. They can actually get away with fewer steel columns supporting the floor over some regulated span of floor - it's that strong a floor design. Modern precast concrete floor slabs actually have several hollow spaces inside and throughout the length because less concrete is needed with rebar used as reinforcing.

Mon, 2010-03-29 02:08

#46

Bubbles

Fidel, I am familiar with pretensioned concrete, but is that what they used? Weight is probably the determining factor, and I suspect that steel joists with a ten gauge corrugarted sheet covered with a few inches of concrete, with maybe a steel mat embedded would be easier and lighter to construct. But That is just my gues as to how they build that flexible tower.

Mon, 2010-03-29 02:17

#47

Fidel

Youre thinking of Q deck. That's gotta be 18-20 guage, something like that. But that's used as form to accept poured concrete. Steel rebar goes on top of Q deck. It's laid out in a crosshatch pattern and all tied together with rebar wire where they rebar intersects other rebar. Then concrete is poured over everything.

Mon, 2010-03-29 02:23

#48

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

Mon, 2010-03-29 03:04

#49

E.P.Houle

[quote=Bubbles]

I am not sure if we can use the demolition of high rises as a comparison. The WTC was a tat more complex then your average highrise. end quote

The concrete is better in compression than steel but is mainly there to bring the structure up to a 4 hour burn resistance. Most things are built with a double redundancy in terms of strength but the WTC was built overcode because of it's experimental height.

How come no one can show me the jet going into #7?

Mon, 2010-03-29 05:37

#50

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:
All that the previous thread proved is that these "truthers" aren't as interested in science as they claim. After I read their complaints that nobody posted scientific evidence to prove them wrong, I went to a peer-reviewed engineering journal and picked one of dozens of articles that debunked their hocus-pocus Fox Mulderite "argument" and posted it. Their response was to post photoshopped images of George Bush.

HOCUS-POCUS? Well that's just Luney Toons!

Ah yes! Now I see it. It was post #127 in the previous thread with a link to a Journal of Engineering Mechanics submission by Bazant and Verdure.

And here is James Grouley's response to one of Bazant and Verdure's anti-scientific analyses on WTC collapse theory and published in:

[url=http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20... of Engineering Mechanics(pdf)[/url] March 2007, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 308–319.

Quote:
This discussion describes flaws in the modeling and analysis of the World Trade Center collapses by Bažant and Verdure in their paper entitled “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.” First, the paper’s two-phased approach to the collapse analysis will be considered The writers will demonstrate that a two-phase collapse analysis is not representative of reality, because it disregards well accepted laws of physics and therefore is not instructive. Second, the original paper’s summary of the findings of the NIST report will be analyzed...

Jimmy Grouley says Boofo Adada Bazant's and Baron von Verdure's theory on collapse is at odds with Newtonian laws of physics. What do have to say about this, Count Bloodcount? la da da dee da da abracadabra Youre an umpire!

Mon, 2010-03-29 10:11

#51

Maysie

So.....

The morning after.

jas, you started it way back at post 11 with this:

jas wrote:
It might also be useful to discuss why certain Babble posters are blatantly lying or disregarding obvious facts in this issue.

That's baiting. Don't do it.

Heywood. The "fuck yous" are not okay and you know it. Knock it off.

You both have been here long enough to know about baiting, personal attacks and personal insults. Stop it.

Yes, I know it can be frustrating to each feel you have a sound argument and that the other side is being unreasonable. Welcome to my world. Turning the mods into "don't bait/don't call each other names/don't swear at each other" police is NOT the way to go.

Come on.

Pages

Topic locked