- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk, let me get this straight...You don't believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology got that statement correct. The sole institution tasked by the U.S. government to determine the official cause of the WTC collapse. The Institution with the absolute final scientific say on the subject? We'll you better give them a call, because it sounds like if they botched that little piece of information up, there is a conspiracy afoot ( a point to which you and I now should firmly agree on)!!! SMH...CheckMate
That is a blatantly false statement and I really don't care who said it. If you think it is not false then demonstrate that a survey of tall buildings and fires has actually been done. As far as I can tell both the people you have quoted saying it just made it up on the spur of the moment.
[b]Do a little research first before you start making accusatio ...[text shortened]... d not find an example of a tall building that collapse due to fire alone? I could get rich here.
Originally posted by joe shmoYes. Its a blatant falsehood.
Ok, let me get this straight...You don't believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology got that statement correct.
The sole institution tasked by the U.S. government to determine the official cause of the WTC collapse.
I don't care how many institutions were tasked with it. If they didn't do an actual survey of all tall buildings that have ever existed and checked whether any had collapsed due to fire, then they just made up the claim on the spot. Since neither of your sources gave any reference for the claim I think it perfectly reasonable to assume they made it up.
The Institution with the absolute final scientific say on the subject?
But not the final say on the subject of tall buildings and fires. No such institution exists.
We'll you better give them a call, because it sounds like if they botched that little piece of information up,
Why should I give them a call? I am sure they are perfectly well aware it was made up and don't care.
there is a conspiracy afoot
No, there isn't. There is simply careless language afoot which is extremely common practice even amongst professionals.
CheckMate
A little be premature.
I am still waiting for you to put a price on how sure you are. Come on, how much are you willing to bet I can't find a counter example?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow about you quit acting like a child...Read this ( Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats Report)... and shut your mouth. Did I say Checkmate? I meant TKO.
Yes. Its a blatant falsehood.
[b]The sole institution tasked by the U.S. government to determine the official cause of the WTC collapse.
I don't care how many institutions were tasked with it. If they didn't do an actual survey of all tall buildings that have ever existed and checked whether any had collapsed due to fire, then they just made up th ...[text shortened]... ce on how sure you are. Come on, how much are you willing to bet I can't find a counter example?[/b]
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf
31 Jan 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhile I'm aware that experts are capable of getting it wrong, I think you have got to do a little better than you are to happily dismiss the findings of NIST. They represent an adequate authority on the matter. If they say there are no documented cases of a tall building collapsing due to fire then you might consider believing them. It is up to you to find a counter example.
Yes. Its a blatant falsehood.
[b]The sole institution tasked by the U.S. government to determine the official cause of the WTC collapse.
I don't care how many institutions were tasked with it. If they didn't do an actual survey of all tall buildings that have ever existed and checked whether any had collapsed due to fire, then they just made up th ...[text shortened]... ce on how sure you are. Come on, how much are you willing to bet I can't find a counter example?[/b]
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAlso, if he needs any help finding his counter example he might best decide to begin his search here.
While I'm aware that experts are capable of getting it wrong, I think you have got to do a little better than you are to happily dismiss the findings of NIST. They represent an adequate authority on the matter. If they say there are no documented cases of a tall building collapsing due to fire then you might consider believing them. It is up to you to find a counter example.
http://www.ctbuh.org/
But then again, according to his statement:
"The Institution with the absolute final scientific say on the subject?
But not the final say on the subject of tall buildings and fires. No such institution exists."
He doesn't believe it exists.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
01 Feb 16
On an unrelated topic there was a recent scandal at the NIST Meth Lab...I mean Lab...with a few unanswered questions. Haven't heard anything in the national media about it. Its amazing how well the media (or government agencies) keeps things of this nature quiet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-lab-meth-case-more-backwoods-than-breaking-bad/2015/08/21/465e7570-476f-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html
Originally posted by joe shmoAfter playing on their site for a while, which is more fun than the subject area sounds, I did a quick literature search and found a paper on the effect of vertically travelling fires [1]. In the abstract they have the following sentence:
Also, if he needs any help finding his counter example he might best decide to begin his search here.
http://www.ctbuh.org/
But then again, according to his statement:
"The Institution with the absolute final scientific say on the subject?
But not the final say on the subject of tall buildings and fires. No such institution exists."
He doesn't believe it exists.
The collapses of the WTC complex buildings in 9/11 as well as other partial collapses like the ones of the Windsor Tower in Madrid and of the Technical University of Delft building posed new questions on the stability of tall buildings in fire.While I recognise that they did not explicitly state that there had been no other complete collapses due to fire they list WTC 1 and 2 and then say "as well as other partial collapses like ..." which implies that the authors were not aware of such an event. Unless it happened somewhere like China, which the regime there might be expected to want to keep quiet, at least internally, this strongly implies that there have been no other complete collapses of tall buildings due to fire.
However, that there have been partial collapses does imply that it is at least possible, unless you have something further about the collapse of WTC 7 that is suspicious I'd say there's no grounds to start seriously considering a conspiracy.
[1] Effect of Vertically Travelling Fires on the Collapse of Tall Buildings
Panagiotis Kotsovinos, Yaqiang Jiang, and Asif Usmani
School of Engineering, The University of Edinburgh, The King’s Buildings, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH9 3JF
International Journal of High-Rise Buildings March 2013, Vol 2, No 1, 49-62
Available here for free download: http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2018-effect-of-vertically-travelling-fires-on-the-collapse-of-tall-buildings.pdf
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThank You for approaching this with a great measure of professionalism. I realize its not an easy topic to discuss in that manner. I'll give [1] a read.
After playing on their site for a while, which is more fun than the subject area sounds, I did a quick literature search and found a paper on the effect of vertically travelling fires [1]. In the abstract they have the following sentence:[quote]The collapses of the WTC complex buildings in 9/11 as well as other partial collapses like the ones of the Win ...[text shortened]... papers/download/2018-effect-of-vertically-travelling-fires-on-the-collapse-of-tall-buildings.pdf
Did you get a chance to look at my very simplified analysis on page 3? I am aware that the plane would be carrying a very large amount of kinetic energy, but I do think that a large portion of it would be absorbed in the plastic deformations of the perimeter and interior structure. I just wonder if there is anything you can add to it, or take away from it. I admittedly could be missing major things, but my idea was to keep it very simple and start from there if anything in it seems suspicious.
I'll just paste it in here for your convenience.
Here is another ( admittedly basic) analysis that I myself just did, that I feel should raise's some question. The plane impacted the northern face of WTC 1, meaning it flew over WTC 7.
Follow the link to the image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_911_Attacks_Illustration_with_Bird%27s-eye_Impact_Locations.svg
Now conservation of Momentum dictates some of the impact debris should have been blown out laterally to the sides ( East and West) and most to the South, and much less than other directions to the North.
Now see Layout of WTC Complex from the following link.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg
Using simple kinematics and other known geometric parameters ( with one unknown postulated parameter - Namely the height of impact) I come to the following result:
Height of WTC 1 = 1,362 ft = y1
Hieght of WTC 7 = 743 ft = y7
Distance between North face of WT1 and South Face of WTC 7 = 370 ft = d ( See link in previous post above to NIST report for parameters verification)
I'm estimating the plane hit at approx 1000 ft = y1' [3] on WTC 1 and using basic kinematics ( neglecting air resistance) The lateral velocity[1] of the ejected material in the Northern direction is can be calculated as follows:
V_North = d*Sqrt( 2*(y1'-y7)/g) = 370[ft]*Sqrt(2*(1000 [ft] - 743[ft])/32.2[ft/s²]) Equation1
V_North = 1500 ft/s (Supersonic Velocity)...I guess Air Resistance should be accounted for, but it would act to retard the impending damage from debris to WTC 7. [2] The question I have is does this make sense? Most of the energy from the hit should have been dissipated in the Southern direction? Its certainly not conclusive, but it seems odd
Edit [1] - I do realize there could ,and most likely were, other components to the velocity of the ejected debris other than purely lateral.
Edit[2] - I will also add that the ejected material would hit lower than the top floors on WTC 7 unless lift at these high speeds was probable.
Edit[3] - Change variable from y1 to y1' in definition and Equation 1
If you demonstrate some obvious flaws and tell me I don't have a leg to stand on I'll let it go. Its a tiring and most likely fruitless pursuit. My general mistrust of authority puts me in these positions. Even though I don't have much of a background for the really complicated analysis ( I'm confident I could take it a bit further than I have), I still like to do sanity checks. However, I'll trust your judgement in this matter over my own as long as you could help me to make sense of your reasoning.
As a note: I would like to say that if you read through the Paper from CTBUH that I posted earlier does not agree to some extent with the NIST report. Why do they go out of there way to state that this disagreement does not lend any credibility with 911 Truth Movement?
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by joe shmoYour first link is broken, but I could see the second one. You can get which stories were impacted and hence the height of impact from this illustration [1] (although it's probably in the text of the page [2] somewhere as well). There is an illustration [3] which shows debris impact areas and it shows plausible looking trajectories of things like an engine and landing gear from the impact with WTC 2 landing further along than WTC 7. From the descriptions there was some serious damage to WTC 7, with fires started by burning material from the attacks.
Thank You for approaching this with a great measure of professionalism. I realize its not an easy topic to discuss in that manner. I'll give [1] a read.
Did you get a chance to look at my very simplified analysis on page 3? I am aware that the plane would be carrying a very large amount of kinetic energy, but I do think that a large portion of it would ...[text shortened]... there way to state that this disagreement does not lend any credibility with 911 Truth Movement?
I think the main problem with your analysis is that you need to be dividing the distance by the time to get the distance travelled, you multiplied probably as a result of trying to do the algebra by typing it in (I've done similar). This gives a velocity of 61 ft/s, taking air resistance into account you can push that upwards without getting implausibly big numbers. The other problem is that you need to be looking at ejecta from WTC 2 and not WTC 1 (see diagram [3]). There's also the issue that in a destructive collision ejecta go all over the place and although overall momentum is conserved, bits can end up with quite large velocities.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locations.svg
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtExcept those aren't 'the findings' of NIST. They just stated it without much thought as it was largely irrelevant to what they were actually tasked to do. And no, I do not need to 'do a little better'. I can dismiss the claim as unfounded as there is zero evidence or reason to think it is based on fact.
While I'm aware that experts are capable of getting it wrong, I think you have got to do a little better than you are to happily dismiss the findings of NIST.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThought"I think the main problem with your analysis is that you need to be dividing the distance by the time to get the distance travelled, you multiplied probably as a result of trying to do the algebra by typing it in (I've done similar). This gives a velocity of 61 ft/s, taking air resistance into account you can push that upwards without getting implausibly big numbers."
Your first link is broken, but I could see the second one. You can get which stories were impacted and hence the height of impact from this illustration [1] (although it's probably in the text of the page [2] somewhere as well). There is an illustration [3] which shows debris impact areas and it shows plausible looking trajectories of things like an en ...[text shortened]... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg
No, I'll take that as a lesson in psychology and the importance of carefully performing algebra. I was subconsciously/consciously looking for number that would stand out in a conspiratorial manner and working fast. I even worked through the units and saw ft/s, now that you point it out the units of my equation work out to ft-s...😳
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAssumption after assumption. You can't debunk something based on assumptions you cannot possibly know are correct. There are many theories regarding WTC 7 and you have not mentioned many of them. How could you possibly know which one is correct?
WTC7 is my favourite conspiracy theory because the building was completely evacuated and there were no casualties. So for this conspiracy to have occurred, it must have been masterminded by brilliant evil geniuses who kept it secret for so long, yet they were so inept they couldn't simply demolish the building a little bit sooner and actually kill some people rather than destroy a building no one really cared about.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Tuskegee syphilis experiment, in which the cure for syphilis (penicillin) was purposefully withheld from African-American patients.
How likely is a conspiracy to stay secret?
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html
The bottom line, once a certain number of people are involved the chances of it kept secret goes to basically zero.
So good luck moon landing fake theorists. That was actually one of those studied.
The experiment may have involved up to 6,700 people, and Dr Peter Buxtun blew the whistle after about 25 years.
Quickly? Not always.