Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[Non Believer]

Just wondering what the explanation is for Bush claiming he watched the first plane hit the North tower before entering the classroom to consider the significance of a pet goat. Was he a profit, liar, fool, or stooge?

[Overman]

Quote? Link? Evidence of Bush saying this?

[Horatius]

Just wondering what the explanation is for Bush claiming he watched the first plane hit the North tower before entering the classroom to consider the significance of a pet goat. Was he a profit, liar, fool, or stooge?

I think we'd go for some combination of fool&liar, that is, a politician trying to look like he's "on top of things" when he isn't.

[Gravy]

No. It was a busy day. What's the big deal?

[ottle]

Here's the Utube with him saying it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgFibjRFfvU

[Bell]

Just wondering what the explanation is for Bush claiming he watched the first plane hit the North tower before entering the classroom to consider the significance of a pet goat. Was he a profit, liar, fool, or stooge?

What about misspoken? Since no camera's were filming the WTC at the time of the first impact AND broadcasting it live, what Bush said is impossible. He could just have meant he watched the North Tower after the first plane hit. Just like many other people did.

[jhunter1163]

I thought he saw the second tower get hit live, not the first. Maybe he saw one of the, oh, I don't know, 50,000 or so televised replays.

ETA: Ah, damn. Bell beat me to it.

[JimBenArm]

What about misspoken? Since no camera's were filming the WTC at the time of the first impact AND broadcasting it live, what Bush said is impossible. He could just have meant he watched the North Tower after the first plane hit. Just like many other people did.

Misspoken? When has Bush ever misspoken? No, my friend, it was all just to throw you off the trail!

[Non Believer]

Just wanted to clarify the quote. He said he watched on television as the first plane hit the north tower.

[Bell]

I thought he saw the second tower get hit live, not the first. Maybe he saw one of the, oh, I don't know, 50,000 or so televised replays.

ETA: Ah, damn. Bell beat me to it.

Bush was sitting in the classroom when the second plane hit. That's when he got told by the SS man that "we are under attack".

Anyway, using his quote as proof for an inside job is as stupid as using Silverstein's 'pull it' quote. Why admit it if you want to cover up a conspiracy? Exactly, they admitted nothing!

[defaultdotxbe]

Bush was sitting in the classroom when the second plane hit. That's when he got told by the SS man that "we are under attack".

Anyway, using his quote as proof for an inside job is as stupid as using Silverstein's 'pull it' quote. Why admit it if you want to cover up a conspiracy? Exactly, they admitted nothing!
and rummy saying f93 was shot down and pentagon was hit by a missile

[ottle]

Yeah, I think this is a case of mountain=molehill. The UTube video said that it was impossible for him to have seen this because that video wasn't released until the next day. If you had asked me, I would have said I definitely saw it on the day itself - that whole time was a blur of horrible TV images and sadness for me. I'm sure it's the same but 100x for Bush...

[jhunter1163]

Bush was sitting in the classroom when the second plane hit. That's when he got told by the SS man that "we are under attack".

Anyway, using his quote as proof for an inside job is as stupid as using Silverstein's 'pull it' quote. Why admit it if you want to cover up a conspiracy? Exactly, they admitted nothing!

You're right, Bell. My bad.

[Bell]

Just wanted to clarify the quote. He said he watched on television as the first plane hit the north tower.

He said "I saw an airplane hit the tower" but probably meant to say "I saw an airplane had hit the tower"

ETA: Doesn't the first sentence mean exactly the same as the second one I posted??

[ranson]

He said "I saw an airplane hit the tower" but probably meant to say "I saw an airplane had hit the tower"

That's a prime example of southern USA grammar. Both phrases hold the same meaning in most southern US dialects.

[firecoins]

He said "I saw an airplane hit the tower" but probably meant to say "I saw an airplane had hit the tower"

ETA: Doesn't the first sentence mean exactly the same as the second one I posted??
When your trying claim Bush did it, gramatical mistakes are meaningless.

[The Doc]

He said he watched it on television. Was it one of those super NWO TV's that no one else can access? Probably.

He then probably morphed into his reptilian form and back to normal before he entered the classroom. We can tell this by playing the 1st verse to "YMCA" in reverse and watching "Top Gun" at the same time. It's so obvious!

[Spindrift]

That's a prime example of southern USA grammar. Both phrases hold the same meaning in most southern US dialects.

Plus this is a man who can't properly pronounce the world "nuclear" and says things like "I've used on the Google" and "I've got a eck-a-lec-tic reading list."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushquotes/a/topbushisms2006.htm

[defaultdotxbe]

When your trying claim Bush did it, gramatical mistakes are meaningless.
its all part of dastardly scheme to change sentence structures in every language, just google the New Word Order and youll see what i mean

[Brainster]

I think the obvious answer is that when he said "I saw an airplane hit the tower", what he meant was "I saw an airplane had hit the tower."

[Spindrift]

its all part of dastardly scheme to change sentence structures in every language, just google the New Word Order and youll see what i mean

You mean just put "New Word Order" into the Google. ;-0

[boloboffin]

I think Bush had a direct video feed to the cameras of the five dancing Joooz.

:hypnotize

No, really, he responded that way at a campaign event. He misrememberated it, on purpose or not, I don't know.

If he had meant to use the word "had", he would have used it the second time. He remembered the event in a way that suited him politically. But after the second time, somebody in his staff perhaps pointed out the impossibility of his having seen the first plane hit the tower.

[CurtC]

That's a prime example of southern USA grammar. Both phrases hold the same meaning in most southern US dialects.It would be less ambiguous with a different verb other than "hit," because "hit" is both present tense and past tense. The sentence on first hearing sounds like he means the present tense, but if you read it as past tense, it is plausible that he meant that he saw that an airplane had hit the tower:

"I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower." Read that again, but force yourself to read "hit" as past tense.

That's plausible that he meant he saw that it had been hit previously, or it's plausible that he thought he recalled seeing the first plane hit, but misremembered. On the other hand, the idea that he really did see the first plane hit on some secret closed-circuit NWO network, and admitted it to the national media, is something only a CT could believe.

[defaultdotxbe]

It would be less ambiguous with a different verb other than "hit," because "hit" is both present tense and past tense. The sentence on first hearing sounds like he means the present tense, but if you read it as past tense, it is plausible that he meant that he saw that an airplane had hit the tower:

"I saw [that] an airplane hit the tower." Read that again, but force yourself to read "hit" as past tense.

That's plausible that he meant he saw that it had been hit previously, or it's plausible that he thought he recalled seeing the first plane hit, but misremembered. On the other hand, the idea that he really did see the first plane hit on some secret closed-circuit NWO network, and admitted it to the national media, is something only a CT could believe.
its easier to show if you use another word, such as "crash into" instead of hit

i saw an airplane crash into the towers

i saw an airplane crashed into the towers

of course with "hit" those two sentences would be indentical

[jaydeehess]

Too bad he isn't hillbilly and said "I saw a plane hitted the tower" (insert appropriate smilie)

Lord, please forgive me for saying bad things about the hillbillies and feed all the starving pygmies, Amen

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Too bad he isn't hillbilly and said "I saw a plane hitted the tower" (insert appropriate smilie)

Lord, please forgive me for saying bad things about the hillbillies and feed all the starving pygmies, Amen

Na'I don't care who y'ar, that's funny raight thar!

[Horatius]

Some Ctists sem to think that no one ever misspeaks. I wonder what they'd make of the title of this thread:

Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

Shouldn't it be:

Did Bush watch the plane hit the first tower ?

So clearly, Non Believer is in on it!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Even President Bush's most ardent supporters readily acknowledge the accidental violence he inflicts upon the english language.

The twoofers know it too and enjoy making fun of him for it as much, if not more, than his mainstream critics.

Except, of course when Bush says something that fits one of thier pet theories. Then they claim the probability of him flubbing it up again somehow drops to zero. They never explain why, for that particular circumstance there is zero likelyhood for Bush to have tripped over his own tounge again.

[personable]

He said he watched it on television. Was it one of those super NWO TV's that no one else can access? Probably.

He then probably morphed into his reptilian form and back to normal before he entered the classroom. We can tell this by playing the 1st verse to "YMCA" in reverse and watching "Top Gun" at the same time. It's so obvious!

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) of the actual argument. For example:

If Einstein's theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity) is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy!
If the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution) were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-intuitive) aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense). This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences).


What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Moreover, it is a type of logical fallacy, which is ironic because Dr Fungi points out the appeal to numbers/authority fallacy in his sig then proceeds to use the fallacy of appeal to ridicule/strawman himself.

[JimBenArm]

What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Moreover, it is a type of logical fallacy, which is ironic because Dr Fungi points out the appeal to numbers/authority fallacy in his sig then proceeds to use the fallacy of appeal to ridicule/strawman himself.

Yeah, guys, what's with all the laughing and making fun of the CT'ers?

You big meanies!

[defaultdotxbe]

the problem is theres no real way to address come of these CT issues, if you ignore them they dont go away, if you ridicule them its a fallacy, if you address them intellectually your validating them in the CTers mind

its lose-lose-lose with some of these people

[Pardalis]

Personable, you focused on one humorous post when 27 other posts pretty much nailed that conspiracy.

Maybe you should take your own advice and ignore the posts you don't like.

[NotJesus]

Some Ctists sem to think that no one ever misspeaks. I wonder what they'd make of the title of this thread:

Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?


It's a typo. It should be, "Did Bush watch [Valerie] Plame hit first tower?"

I'm telling you -- this thing is deeper than anyone imagines.

[Regnad Kcin]

Just wondering what the explanation is for Bush claiming he watched the first plane hit the North tower before entering the classroom to consider the significance of a pet goat. Was he a profit, liar, fool, or stooge?Oh, I think it was profit all right...on the order of one meeellion dollars (http://www.brendanloy.com/blog/images/dr-evil-bush-sm.jpg)!

[Peephole]

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) of the actual argument. For example:
If Einstein's theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity) is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy!
If the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution) were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-intuitive) aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense). This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences).


What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Moreover, it is a type of logical fallacy, which is ironic because Dr Fungi points out the appeal to numbers/authority fallacy in his sig then proceeds to use the fallacy of appeal to ridicule/strawman himself.
Chill. Get a sense of humour.

[PerryLogan]

Yea, what a party-pooper.

Besides, it wasn't "appeal to ridicule." It was just ridicule. I think we can all agree the Truthers need and merit huge quantities of ridicule.

[defaultdotxbe]

yeah, if you beleive that the bush admin rigged up a special secret CCTV feed and ran it to a school in florida where they installed equipment to view the feed just so the president coudl watch the plane hit the towers before going into the classroom to feign brain freeze for 20 minutes you dont need to be dubunked, you need to be slapped on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper

[JimBenArm]

yeah, if you beleive that the bush admin rigged up a special secret CCTV feed and ran it to a school in florida where they installed equipment to view the feed just so the president coudl watch the plane hit the towers before going into the classroom to feign brain freeze for 20 minutes you dont need to be dubunked, you need to be slapped on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper

Ow! That hurt!

[Cylinder]

and rummy saying f93 was shot down and pentagon was hit by a missile

I think that was more of an instance of the use of jargon to a non-technical audience. From a military-technical perspective, a missile did hit the Pentagon and I would be very much surprised if it were not referred to as such in many Pentagon reports - at least as a previously-qualified pronoun.

[firecoins]

If the theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution) were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!
lf.
My grandfather was a gorilla. What do you have against my grandfather? I am part gorilla. what do you have against gorillas? Are you gorillaist?

[Alt+F4]

So Bush admitted the plot once and Rummy three times.....and it's all on videotape! Wow, where's the impeachment?

[beachnut]

Just wanted to clarify the quote. He said he watched on television as the first plane hit the north tower.

He messed up;

He could only see what the rest of us saw; now go mess it up some more by making up what it means.

He could only see what we saw. We have seen both towers being hit; what day, what time, when, where, did he mess up?

I have see both planes hit the towers. I do not remember which time and what day. I watched tv live and replay.

But to make up CT on the messed up talk of anyone is pure junk.

So do you want to use this as an inside job; have at it. Weak evidence for anything.

I assume he meant we saw the first tower hit! cause we all did; we saw the first tower hit; dumb pilot talk to me, but I saw the first tower hit;

translation; i saw where the first plane hit the tower; it was kind of like a plane hole!


I saw the first tower HIT (this is the truth and more junk) he said "I saw an airplane hit the tower" ; we are both retarded!

[Soapy Sam]

Whether he did or did not has no significance.

A single aircraft hits a building. Major tragedy. Big disaster. People are paid to fix that and clean up the mess. Even the President of the USA is not expected to deal personally with such an event.

Two aircraft hit two adjacent buildings in the same city within an hour.
Different scenario entirely. An act of war by an unknown aggressor. The President of the USA needs to think fast. The current incumbent is hampered in this respect by innate lack of ability. Deer in the headlights, know what I mean?

We tend to forget that during the time between the first and second impact, those who knew about the first one assumed it was an accident.
Only after the second crash did we realise that was not the case at all.

[28th Kingdom]

You know what's funny. Lots of things are funny, but I know one thing that is funny. Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?

We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.

It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.

[CurtC]

I think that was more of an instance of the use of jargon to a non-technical audience. From a military-technical perspective, a missile did hit the Pentagon and I would be very much surprised if it were not referred to as such in many Pentagon reportsThe quote from Rumsfeld, as printed in Parade magazine, is:Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.This was from a phone interview, and apparently wasn't the best connection as evidenced by the inaudible part.

The whole "and the missile" thing makes no sense. But what if they heard one word wrong? What if Rumsfeld actually said "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building..."? I think that's what happened.

[Bell]

We tend to forget that during the time between the first and second impact, those who knew about the first one assumed it was an accident.
Only after the second crash did we realise that was not the case at all.

Not entirely true. Chief Pfeiffer (of the Naudet's documentary fame) who made the first call about the crash, advised Manhattan dispatch that it could be a terrorist attack.

[beachnut]

You know what's funny. Lots of things are funny, but I know one thing that is funny. Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?

We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.

It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.

It would be funny if you had some facts! Got some?

[Bell]

You know what's funny. Lots of things are funny, but I know one thing that is funny. Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?

We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.

It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.

:id:

[beachnut]

You know what's funny. Lots of things are funny, but I know one thing that is funny. Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?

We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.

It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.

No one can be this dumb; you are just joking right?

[apathoid]

Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?

Yes, thats exactly what you've done 643 times during your short stay here.

:i:

[pomeroo]

My grandfather was a gorilla. What do you have against my grandfather? I am part gorilla. what do you have against gorillas? Are you gorillaist?



An e-mail exchange between moi and the ever-patient Dr. Frank Greening:----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Wieck

To: Frank Greening

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:45 PM

Subject: Weighing In



Dear Frank,


This is a silly question and, for you, an extremely simple one, but I hope you'll indulge me. My girlfriend (the, heh-heh, gorilla my dreams) and I were watching the remake of 'King Kong' when she turned to me and asked how much the giant ape would weigh. I replied that if we assume that a 6-foot tall gorilla weighs 500 lbs., to obtain the weight of a 24-foot tall gorilla, we multiply 500 by 4 cubed. That's right, isn't it? Would a gorilla 4x larger than a normal-sized one really weigh 32,000 lbs. (16 tons)?


Best Regards and Happy New New Year,


Ron
Dear Ron,

Thanks for the crazy e-mail. But it actually raises a whole bunch of interesting questions about building REALISTIC scale models of the Twin Towers. This turns out to be very difficult to do....

The way I would address your question is something like this:

The first assumption to make is that the density of the large and small gorillas remains constant.

Now density, rho = mass, M, divided by volume, V

So rho1 = M1/V1 and rho2 = M2/V2

So with constant density, M1/V1 = M2/V2

or, M1/M2 = V1/V2

Now for a gorilla represented as a cube of side d,

V1/V2 = d1^3/d2^3 , where the notation ^3 means raised to the power 3.

So, for your example, M1/M2 = 6^3/24^3 = 216/13824 = 1/64 = 1/4^3

Now if you assume the gorilla was more like a cylinder than a cube you will find you get the ratio of a radius squared times a height. But both the height and radius are scaled by a factor of 4, giving a ratio of 4^3 or four cubed for the case of a cylinder.

And if you think about it, regardless of the shape of the gorilla, the scaling factor in your problem is always four cubed.

In other words, Ron, I believe your answer is correct!

By the way if you scale a 400 meter tower weighing 400,000 tonnes down to a model 1 meter tall, it should weigh 6.25 kg. But if you make the model 2 meters tall it should weigh 50 kg...... in this case we have 2^3 or eight as our scaling factor.


So, Ron , wishing you

A VERY

HAPPY NEW YEAR,

Frank

[Bell]

Pomeroo, I think you should edit your message to take out the e-mail address of Mr. Greening (and maybe your own?)

[Architect]

You know what's funny. Lots of things are funny, but I know one thing that is funny. Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?

We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.

It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.


I think it's quite funny that you claimed it was impossible for steel trusses to fail due to fire, and then when I posted two highly detailed technical papers (Edinburgh and Sheffield Universities) demonstrating that it was indeed possible, you ran away. Then put me on ignore.

So yes, it is just a waste of time talking to you. You are lost, and deluded, and hopeless. You twist the story to suit your own deluded views and ignore anyone who shows them for the ill-formed rubbish that they are.

So there.

Someone may have to repost this in order that the eejit can read it. The good thing is, though, that he'll then put you on ignore too........

[JimBenArm]

I think it's quite funny that you claimed it was impossible for steel trusses to fail due to fire, and then when I posted two highly detailed technical papers (Edinburgh and Sheffield Universities) demonstrating that it was indeed possible, you ran away. Then put me on ignore.

So yes, it is just a waste of time talking to you. You are lost, and deluded, and hopeless. You twist the story to suit your own deluded views and ignore anyone who shows them for the ill-formed rubbish that they are.

So there.

Someone may have to repost this in order that the eejit can read it. The good thing is, though, that he'll then put you on ignore too........

Here, allow me.

[Firestone]

I think it's quite funny that you claimed it was impossible for steel trusses to fail due to fire, and then when I posted two highly detailed technical papers (Edinburgh and Sheffield Universities) demonstrating that it was indeed possible, you ran away. Then put me on ignore.

So yes, it is just a waste of time talking to you. You are lost, and deluded, and hopeless. You twist the story to suit your own deluded views and ignore anyone who shows them for the ill-formed rubbish that they are.

So there.

Someone may have to repost this in order that the eejit can read it. The good thing is, though, that he'll then put you on ignore too........Oh, I'm sure he's reading your posts anyway.

By the way, 28th Kingdom, don't forget to answer the many open questions in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70949).

[HyJinX]

You know what's funny. Lots of things are funny, but I know one thing that is funny. Isn't it funny how all the deniers are allowed to twist and distort every word and every piece of evidence until it fits into their safe little image of reality?

We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.

It's just a waste of time talking to these types...they're lost...they are deluded...they are hopeless. Hopeless...yes... that is a great word to describe them. They will never believe 9/11 was an inside job unless that becomes the official story.

I think it's quite funny that you claimed it was impossible for steel trusses to fail due to fire, and then when I posted two highly detailed technical papers (Edinburgh and Sheffield Universities) demonstrating that it was indeed possible, you ran away. Then put me on ignore.

So yes, it is just a waste of time talking to you. You are lost, and deluded, and hopeless. You twist the story to suit your own deluded views and ignore anyone who shows them for the ill-formed rubbish that they are.

So there.

Someone may have to repost this in order that the eejit can read it. The good thing is, though, that he'll then put you on ignore too........

For your reading pleasure 28th.

[JimBenArm]

This brings up a question I have. Is there any way to see if someone has you on "ignore"?

[Architect]

Lads, remind me to buy you all a beer the next time you're in the UK.....:)

[T.A.M.]

Personable:

I think to ridicule, like to err, is human. There are lots of things that are human nature. That is not to justify them, as many things we as a species do are abhorant, but to start ass cracking with the whip simply because the people here are ridiculing is a little silly, especially since you have been a member here for 2 months, and clearly have seen how things go here. There is as much sensible debate and discussion of the issues as there is ridicule. The debunkers here listen to the same old drivel time and time again, so frustration and bitterness sneak in, just as they would with anyone who had to listen to the same damn lies repeated to them day in, day out. When something new and interesting comes about, you can bet these guys here will debate it into the ground.

TAM

[pomeroo]

Yes, 28thKingdom, faced with a choice between Bush admitting to millions of viewers that he watched something he could not POSSIBLY have watched or Bush misspeaking, you will opt for the former. Nobody expects you to tell the truth--as a fantasist, that just isn't your "thing." But, secretly--in your heart of hearts, when you're reduced to pretending that Bush confessed to a vast conspiracy, including video footage unavailable to anyone anywhere, as opposed to accepting that Bush was, well, talking like Bush, don't you sometimes feel almost too silly to continue? I mean, just how much of a horse's ass can you make of yourself before the idea of closing up shop becomes irresistible?

[Bell]

This brings up a question I have. Is there any way to see if someone has you on "ignore"?

Alas, there isn't. I wondered myself a while ago:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68330

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, I think you should edit your message to take out the e-mail address of Mr. Greening (and maybe your own?)


Many thanks, Bell. I am a trusting but naive soul.

[Bell]

Many thanks, Bell. I am a trusting but naive soul.

Nah, you're not. Because if so, Gravy had to debate three deniers on the Hardfire show ;)

[28th Kingdom]

Updated ignore list:

Architect
Arkan_Wolfshade
Arus808
beachnut
Foolmewunz
HeyLeroy
Horatius
HyJinX
JimBenArm
Kiwiwriter
mortimer
Regnad Kcin
solidslade
stateofgrace

[JimBenArm]

Updated ignore list:

Architect
Arkan_Wolfshade
Arus808
beachnut
Foolmewunz
HeyLeroy
Horatius
HyJinX
JimBenArm
Kiwiwriter
mortimer
Regnad Kcin
solidslade
stateofgrace

Woo-hoo! Made it!

He hates me! He really hates me!

Now, where's my "Ignored by 28K" Badge?

[HyJinX]

Do I get a patch or medal or something!!!!!???


:medalofho

[Firestone]

:mad:

I've twice quoted people on his ignore list, and still didn't make it!

Life is soooooooooo unfair ... :(

[Bell]

Updated ignore list:

Architect
Arkan_Wolfshade
Arus808
beachnut
Foolmewunz
HeyLeroy
Horatius
HyJinX
JimBenArm
Kiwiwriter
mortimer
Regnad Kcin
solidslade
stateofgrace

Jeezzz :rolleyes: you are one pathetic little child. Instead of putting everybody and his cat on your ignore list, why don't you f*** the hell off and save yourself the trouble?

[Architect]

Do I get a patch or medal or something!!!!!???


:medalofho

I believe Oliver is responsible for some sort of badge........

[Oliver]

I believe Oliver is responsible for some sort of badge........

I´m on duty, Sir! :D What type of badge is required? :D

[JimBenArm]

I´m on duty, Sir! :D What type of badge is required? :D

Didn't you make up an "Ignored by 28th Kingdom" patch? He's gone and put me on his bad boy list.

[uk_dave]

28th Kingdom: ......................

I'm sorry...did you type something?

[Architect]

I´m on duty, Sir! :D What type of badge is required? :D

I dunno; what will annoy 28th the most?

Can I have mine in Welsh, as that seems to be confusing RemoveBush too?

[Oliver]

Didn't you make up an "Ignored by 28th Kingdom" patch? He's gone and put me on his bad boy list.

Well, i guess you need one of these... :)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107458b5f52f083f.gif

[Oliver]

I dunno; what will annoy 28th the most?

Can I have mine in Welsh, as that seems to be confusing RemoveBush too?

No problem - if you post the message in welsh... :">

[Architect]

Well, he doesn't seem to have twigged that I was just posting the weather forecast from S4C (Channel 4 Wales) so far, so just put in lots of LLs and FWs.

[Bell]

...

Fwot llo me hog efw?

[JimBenArm]

Well, i guess you need one of these... :)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107458b5f52f083f.gif

Thanks! I'm honored.

[Architect]

Troi'n wyntog ac yn lawog.




I think it means "today's weather"

http://www.s4c.co.uk/

[DarkMagician]

Updated ignore list:

Architect
Arkan_Wolfshade
Arus808
beachnut
Foolmewunz
HeyLeroy
Horatius
HyJinX
JimBenArm
Kiwiwriter
mortimer
Regnad Kcin
solidslade
stateofgrace

Soon, he'll only see himself in his intellectual masturbation.

Look, 28, if you want debate, get everyone off of ignore and defend your position like someone of intelligence. If you want your mangled definition of debate, then get your own forum from some free forum place, and get lost.

[Bell]

Troi'n wyntog ac yn lawog.

Woah! Dude! :eek: A good thing 28IQ has you on his ignore list. That's a MAJOR breech of rule 8! :eek:

[Horatius]

Jeezzz :rolleyes: you are one pathetic little child. Instead of putting everybody and his cat on your ignore list, why don't you f*** the hell off and save yourself the trouble?

Well, it was my cat that put me on The List, so I'd say he's well on the way to "everybody and his cat".


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_9490455532504ce19.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2525)

[28th Kingdom]

DM...wait a sec...do you believe in Intelligent Design?

[Architect]

Woah! Dude! :eek: A good thing 28IQ has you on his ignore list. That's a MAJOR breech of rule 8! :eek:


Today, the Breton site (their TV web page and thus weather forecast seemed to be down yesterday - bizarrely, their pop up warning was in French, hmmmmm)

http://www.tv-breizh.com/ (http://www.tv-breizh.com/)

[Bell]

Well, it was my cat that put me on The List, so I'd say he's well on the way to "everybody and his cat".


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_9490455532504ce19.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2525)

lol, it was you and your cat pictures which I was thinking of when I wrote that part :)

[JimBenArm]

Well, it was my cat that put me on The List, so I'd say he's well on the way to "everybody and his cat".


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_9490455532504ce19.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2525)

I must say, your cat shows greater computing skills than 28K or RemovedBrain do!

Cuter, too.

[Bell]

DM...wait a sec...do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Jeezzz... are you THAT stupid? :eek: :rolleyes:

[DarkMagician]

DM...wait a sec...do you believe in Intelligent Design?

*cough* *cough* mimimimimimi

*gasp*

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT ALL!!!

[Bell]

*cough* *cough* mimimimimimi

*gasp*

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT ALL!!!

lol, the links in your sig... which he FAILED to follow :rolleyes: Guess 28IQ never uses ANY part of his brain.

[Horatius]

We can present video footage...of people/persons involved in 9/11 who clearly state WORD FOR WORD...NO INTERPRETATION NEEEEEEEDEDEDDED - something that contradicts the official story, yet these boneheads will just shrug it off like it's nothing.


So if there's "no interpretation needed", why, on the anniversay of 9/11, when the twoofers were shouting "Pull it!" like a bunch of good little nazis, did Alex Jones have to explain to passersby what "Pull it" meant?

Yep, none of that nasty "interpretation" there, nuh-uh!

And I still say the whole Bush quote thing was a politician talking out his a$$. You'd think someone as anti-government as 28k would understand that. He was lying, in an incredibly stupid way. Sort of like a twoofer, come to think of it :)

[Horatius]

lol, it was you and your cat pictures which I was thinking of when I wrote that part :)

I'm honoured!

I must say, your cat shows greater computing skills than 28K or RemovedBrain do!

Cuter, too.

I think my favourite part of that photo is his tail draped over the edge of the box, as if that's just a perfectly natural place for a tail to be :)

[Oliver]

I don´t know what it means - so blame Lisa... :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/111074595993565fe0.gif

[Horatius]

*cough* *cough* mimimimimimi

*gasp*

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT ALL!!!

I'm going to go with, he read your sig but didn't understand it. And didn't click any links, either.

[Architect]

Minority languages: alive and well on JREF, just as long as you only want to know the weather!

[MG1962]

Well the Bush thing is not without precedent. Neil Armstrong's version of what he said when he stepped on the Moon is different to what the world heard. He had ages to practice his, and I am sure he will go his grave convinced he really said the missing word.

Does that invalidate the Moon Landings? No

So then I am not sure a missing word validates a 911 conspiracy

[Bell]

28th Kingdom, it takes a man to admit he was wrong (this in regards to your assumption that DM believes in intelligent design). Are you a man, are you going to admit?

[Regnad Kcin]

Updated ignore list:

Architect
Arkan_Wolfshade
Arus808
beachnut
Foolmewunz
HeyLeroy
Horatius
HyJinX
JimBenArm
Kiwiwriter
mortimer
Regnad Kcin
solidslade
stateofgracePlease grow up. Everyone will be happier, including you.

Love,

RK

[beachnut]

Updated ignore list:

Architect
Arkan_Wolfshade
Arus808
beachnut
Foolmewunz
HeyLeroy
Horatius
HyJinX
JimBenArm
Kiwiwriter
mortimer
Regnad Kcin
solidslade
stateofgrace

28th's permanent ignore list:

facts
logic
evidence
reason
math
physics
engineering
material science
reading comprehension
good research

[Oliver]

28th's permanent ignore list:

facts
logic
evidence
reason
math
physics
engineering
material science
reading comprehension
good research

Bhwahahaha. Great one, Beachnut! :D And humor - off course... :p

[Non Believer]

It's not important for a nation to examine what its leader did during the the most critical hours our nation ever faced. Analysis like what did he say and do are clearly too one sided for consideration. Instead we simply add words to what was said and presto we have the meaning we like. But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.
Also what is the official story of what he knew that day? Isn't it that he was only informed of the second plane hitting, and had not been informed on the first? If so, he is still contradicting that account. He is clearly describing what he did before he went in the classroom. For those of you who couldn't remember what plane crash was shown live, and which wasn't, I recommend memory supplements.
So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

[pomeroo]

So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses


So, what's your verdict, NB? Do you lean toward the interpretation that Bush revealed the existence of a vast--so vast as to be mathematically impossible-- conspiracy guilty of an unprecedented crime, or do you allow for the possibility that he misspoke?

Don't be coy, now. We know your answer.

[stateofgrace]

It's not important for a nation to examine what its leader did during the the most critical hours our nation ever faced. Analysis like what did he say and do are clearly too one sided for consideration. Instead we simply add words to what was said and presto we have the meaning we like. But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.
Also what is the official story of what he knew that day? Isn't it that he was only informed of the second plane hitting, and had not been informed on the first? If so, he is still contradicting that account. He is clearly describing what he did before he went in the classroom. For those of you who couldn't remember what plane crash was shown live, and which wasn't, I recommend memory supplements.
So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

Are you being serious?

Really?

Did you hear what Bush said after he saw the plane hit the Tower? “That must be a terrible pilot". What is to explain? Bush is stupid, it is self explanatory.

Please stop reading conspiracy into inane comments.

[Bell]

It's not important for a nation to examine what its leader did during the the most critical hours our nation ever faced. Analysis like what did he say and do are clearly too one sided for consideration. Instead we simply add words to what was said and presto we have the meaning we like. But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.
Also what is the official story of what he knew that day? Isn't it that he was only informed of the second plane hitting, and had not been informed on the first? If so, he is still contradicting that account. He is clearly describing what he did before he went in the classroom. For those of you who couldn't remember what plane crash was shown live, and which wasn't, I recommend memory supplements.
So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

NO!! The burden of prove is on the deniers side. You lot claim a conspiracy. Proof to me what happened on 9/11 was an inside job. Give me your best evidence. Now. Thanks much.

[Larry Lovage]

But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.My understanding is that nobody just "says it ain't so", they have conclusively proved that the testimonies are erroneous, based on physical and documentary evidence and the majority of other testimony. I don't know all the details (I've never heard of the Skilling stuff for instance), but I was in an argument on a forum once about the Richard Clarke testimony and the question was "Why was Richard Clarke's testimony ignored by the Commission, when it contradicted what was said by other officials yadayada", and the answer was, "I think the Commission ignored his testimony because it was contradicted by the testimony of all those other people." Truthers sometimes have an endearingly screwy idea of what constitutes valid evidence.

What annoys me most about the YouTube extract from whatever truther pseudodoc included the Bush quote, is that the only way they can make Bush seem more devious is by forgetting their own and everybody else's reactions on the day of the incident. I also thought it was a bad accident until the second plane hit. I also may have said things about the first plane hitting the WTC without literally having seen it.

(Also, since he said that he hadn't gone into the classroom yet, presumably he was watching regular television somewhere in the school. So how was he supposed to have seen different stuff to the rest of us?)

Point of Information - it wasn't a Secret Service guy that came in to tell him about the second plane, it was Chief of Staff Andy Card. Ohhh, for a Leo McGarry or CJ Cregg to really be in charge....

[firecoins]

NO!! The burden of prove is on the deniers side. You lot claim a conspiracy. Proof to me what happened on 9/11 was an inside job. Give me your best evidence. Now. Thanks much.
The 9/11 Truth movement can not do that. They make a stronger case with a few unprovable "what if" scenarios.

[Cylinder]

So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?

No - because there are more possible options than a consistent and truthful account or the attacks being undertaken by the US government. For you to defend a claim that the US government undertook the attacks, you need to provide evidence that supports that assertion.

[Bell]

I also thought it was a bad accident until the second plane hit. I also may have said things about the first plane hitting the WTC without literally having seen it.

I arrived home about 9:25 EST that day. I didn't know about the attacks at that time. First thing I did when I got home, was read my e-mail. A friend posted an e-mail about two planes hitting the WTC, and included a BBC News screencap of the burning towers. First thing I thought was that two planes collided and crashed into the towers.

[beachnut]

It's not important for a nation to examine what its leader did during the the most critical hours our nation ever faced. Analysis like what did he say and do are clearly too one sided for consideration. Instead we simply add words to what was said and presto we have the meaning we like. But you guys are the fact based evidentiary types correct? Of course we have direct quotes from John Skilling, Norman Mineta, Richard Clarke, and many others that you guys tell us just aren't true. What an easy strategy. Just say it ain't so.
Also what is the official story of what he knew that day? Isn't it that he was only informed of the second plane hitting, and had not been informed on the first? If so, he is still contradicting that account. He is clearly describing what he did before he went in the classroom. For those of you who couldn't remember what plane crash was shown live, and which wasn't, I recommend memory supplements.
So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.
Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

It sounds like you are making a religion of hate out of stupid statements; the president and you had the same information on 9/11.

You are not as smart as the president?

[qayak]

Well the Bush thing is not without precedent. Neil Armstrong's version of what he said when he stepped on the Moon is different to what the world heard. He had ages to practice his, and I am sure he will go his grave convinced he really said the missing word.

Does that invalidate the Moon Landings? No

So then I am not sure a missing word validates a 911 conspiracy

Maybe he did afterall.

http://katv.com/news/stories/0906/365473.html

[Brainster]

What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

Congrats on conquering the strawman that has slain the rest of us.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Yes, and none of us knows for sure enough about evolution to be confident enough to debunk creationists, and none of us knows for sure enough about the supernatural to debunk faith healers and none of us knows for sure enough about mathematics to prove 1+1=2.

Yawn.

[eeyore1954]

Finally the fact that this statement has not been made widely known to the public is ridiculous. The media at a minimum should have insisted on an explanation of this statement. Keep up the excuses

When George Bush mispeaks it is not news. One board I used to post on ( I think is was the Young Turks) had a special thread devoted to entering misstatements from him.

Here is a different thread about them.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Here is a recent quote from him.
"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

Here is another one
This morning my administration released the budget numbers for fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th." --George W. Bush, on the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2006

Is this proof of the NWO conspiracy of slowing down the Earths orbit around the sun which will eventually cause February to need 30 days. Bush knows it is underway and he accidently let the cat out of the bag with this statement.


And George Bush is by no means alone in this world when it comes to mistatements. This morning I called my youngest daughter by her older sisters name is this proof that they are actually clones? Or that sometimes you say things that are not exactly correct?

[beachnut]

What is it with all you fanatics and your 9/11 back slapping? If you're tired of the CTers why don't you just ignore them. Posting crap like this makes you look like a bunch of nay-sayers and not a bunch of sceptics.

I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also treat anything issued by the government with a degree of scepticism.

I don't believe the CTers have any grounds to suggest a CT. I would also suggest that none of you know for sure, enough about 9/11 to be confident enough to 'debunk' the CTers in this mocking way.

Moreover, it is a type of logical fallacy, which is ironic because Dr Fungi points out the appeal to numbers/authority fallacy in his sig then proceeds to use the fallacy of appeal to ridicule/strawman himself.

You know a good round of facts would help a CT nut case when they post.

Simple facts; I image some here can debunk a lot. I have yet to see any expert on the CT side come up with facts to prove anything.

When someone does come up with a new topic people will get serious and down to business. But Bush talking about what he saw is simple junk.

Unless someone has proof of secret government live recordings to the presidents brain then we all can relax; because like the rest of us on 9/11 he was just sitting around doing what was on the schedule!

But he could have a chip in his head to receive live video; we (not me) stuck a chip in a dogs brain to pull off signals back in the 80s at the lab! Check it out. So maybe there is a CT. Maybe they learned from Nixon's mistake; why go small when you can get the big one!

Did the president have a chip with live video imbedded in his head?

But since we are talking about talk; why be so factual about the fiction built by any stupid little thing on 9/11. The president's statement is just talk and if a CT guy wants to build his lies on it they only point out how bad they are at grasping at straws and how easy it is to poke fun at the lack of brains on the CT side; brains under the bias of unknown and untold agendas.

[orphia nay]

Bushisms (http://www.slate.com/id/76886/)

Bushisms (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm)

Bushisms (http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/bushisms/)

etc, etc, etc (http://www.google.com/search?q=bushisms&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1) (845,000 hits)

But for once he reveals the tWOOf!!?!!?? How convenient. :rolleyes:

See how many non-sarcastic references to Bush's "wisdom", "wise words" or "great quotes" you can find anywhere.

[PerryLogan]

Apparently, it is far easier for Truthers to believe the bad guys blurt out clues than it is for the rest of us. They are always saying the bad guys like to spill the beans in public...but their stories always sound lame to the rest of us. You could probably compile a huge list of alleged "confessions" by the perps, starting with Silverstein's "pull it" statement and going on from there.

It's always the same pattern:
1) the statement never sounds like a confession to anyone but conspiracy guys;
2) interpreting the statements as confessions always involves bizarre assumptions (i.e., that "pull it" means to demolish a building; that GWB is a lucid man never given to misstatements; that the conspirators are very careless people); and
3) the conspiracy guys accuse everyone else in the world of being stupid for not perceiving the obvious fact that the perps like to blurt out clues.

[Architect]

Too many James Bond films, I expect......

[Bell]

It's also unbelievable how they cherry pick the part where he says "I saw the first plane hit the tower" but leave out "I thought what a terrible pilot" (paraphrasing)

So IF there was a conspiracy, and Bush watched the first plane crash into the tower, why would he think the pilot was terrible? Wasn't the pilot supposed to hit the building?

[Horatius]

It's also unbelievable how they cherry pick the part where he says "I saw the first plane hit the tower" but leave out "I thought what a terrible pilot" (paraphrasing)

So IF there was a conspiracy, and Bush watched the first plane crash into the tower, why would he think the pilot was terrible? Wasn't the pilot supposed to hit the building?

Ah, but what you don't see is, he did misspeak, but it was in the "I thought what a terrible pilot" statement.

He meant to say "I thought what a terrorist pilot"*

Because they so love to blurt out clues, you see.




*with all due respect to Superman II. The original one, not the Donner remix, which probably doesn't include this line, from what I understand, not having seen it yet.

[Non Believer]

I know its a black and white world for most of you. Either you are a C. T nut or a beholden skeptic, but do you ever consider that people might not fall into neat groups. Brainster seems to suggest to this, but then apparently gets sleepy from this much thought. Believe it or not you can be curious about the events of that day without having reached firm conclusions about what the implications are. But that black and white world of conclusion before examination is so much more comforting.
With this in mind, I would suggest that much of America would find these comments of Bush disturbing. Ya they might think that Bush misspoke again, but a good percentage would question why a quote like this is not more widely known.
None of you seemed to respond on what the official story is. When was Bush first notified that any plane had hit a tower? But I guess if Bush can't be held accountable for what he says, we can't hold him accountable for what he hears either so I guess that wouldn't count as well. Kind of reminds me of a story about a monkey with hands on his face.
As to your insistence that it is up to the CT side to prove the case, why? Do you not believe that it is up to an administration to explain the events of that day first? Do you really believe that if it had been a democratic administration that you would not be insisting that they prove they were not negligent.
Some of you claim that nothing Bush says could be a hint of a conspiracy because why would he say things to incriminate himself. This idea is taken further on other 9-11 subjects with the claim that if anything comes out that supports a conspiracy it cannot be true because conspirators wouldn't have allowed such info to come out. This is really a beautiful piece of sophistry. I don't even know which of the logical fallacies this is. Perhaps they didn't list it since it is so ridiculous. But its logic states that we can never know of a conspiracy because conspirators would never make mistakes that allow their conspiracy to be shown. Ya right.
Also on the 'pull it' comment by Silverstien, are you denying that that is jargon used in the demolition industry, And if you were refering to pulling fireman, wouldn't "pull them" make a little more sense.
Finally, I would assume that at least some of you are aware that 'plausible deniability" became an admitted strategy of the U. S intelligence services under Eisenhower. And isn't it a perfect fit to get bumbling presidents (such as the present one and good old Ronnie) to carry out this strategy.

[Architect]

As to your insistence that it is up to the CT side to prove the case, why? Do you not believe that it is up to an administration to explain the events of that day first? Do you really believe that if it had been a democratic administration that you would not be insisting that they prove they were not negligent.


"Proving" a case is something of a misnomer; rather it is a case of assembling the evidence, and then testing the various hypotheses against this until the most likely solution is identified.

1. The NIST report is rather comprehensive. It reviews the available evidence in great detail, reviews various different options, and arrives at a conclusion based solely on the evidence.

2. Your average CT theory pulls together inconsistent and invariably less than comprehensive evidence, then leapfrogs to a solution. There is no academic, balanced analysis or attempt to approach the collapses in an even handed manner.

If CTers wish to be taken seriously, then they need to produce a sufficiently well argued and supported case. They must also be prepared to defend that case from proper scrutiny. Until they do, then they might as well claim it was an alien death ray from Wolverhampton.

[Non Believer]

Architect, at least you do admit there is some level of accountability upon the administration which is really my only point in this regard. I do not want to get too tangential with the NIST report here (perhaps we can take it up somewhere else), but here are the common criticisims of it.
1- The actual physical models that NIST tested did not collapse, and had only mild sagging in the floor trusses.
2- the makeup of the NIST team included the same individuals that were at Oklahoma city, and that were on the FEMA commision. Namely Corley and Thornton engineering.
3- The computer models they used exaggerated any reasonable expectation of temperatures within the towers. No samples from the deris from the towers showed signs of temps above 600 F, and models of fire temps for office combustibles do not exceed this either.
4- Computer models for NIST's calculations are not made available for the public. Many proffesional engineers have complained of this.
5- No calculation for global collapse. They did make a cryptic calculation for collapse of the floors damaged by plane impact and fire, but they just assume that the whole tower would collapse after the initial floors did.

2- As to your second point, it is clearly a mass generalization. I find that most C.T's are more willing to argue the facts of the case, while the so called skeptics claim it is so ridiculous why bother with the facts. This too is a generalization, but is based on personal experience.

[Bell]

I know its a black and white world for most of you. Either you are a C. T nut or a beholden skeptic, but do you ever consider that people might not fall into neat groups. Brainster seems to suggest to this, but then apparently gets sleepy from this much thought. Believe it or not you can be curious about the events of that day without having reached firm conclusions about what the implications are. But that black and white world of conclusion before examination is so much more comforting.
With this in mind, I would suggest that much of America would find these comments of Bush disturbing. Ya they might think that Bush misspoke again, but a good percentage would question why a quote like this is not more widely known.

Because there is no evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job, hence there was no camera broadcasting live pictures to a TV where Bush saw the first plane hit. And therefor he could not have seen the first plane hit the tower before he entered the calssroom.

None of you seemed to respond on what the official story is. When was Bush first notified that any plane had hit a tower? But I guess if Bush can't be held accountable for what he says, we can't hold him accountable for what he hears either so I guess that wouldn't count as well. Kind of reminds me of a story about a monkey with hands on his face.

Bush said he watched the coverage before he entered the classroom.

As to your insistence that it is up to the CT side to prove the case, why? Do you not believe that it is up to an administration to explain the events of that day first? Do you really believe that if it had been a democratic administration that you would not be insisting that they prove they were not negligent.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

No need to thank me. On the other hand, the deniers still fail to provide REAL EVIDENCE of an inside job. So why would we then think there was one?


Some of you claim that nothing Bush says could be a hint of a conspiracy because why would he say things to incriminate himself. This idea is taken further on other 9-11 subjects with the claim that if anything comes out that supports a conspiracy it cannot be true because conspirators wouldn't have allowed such info to come out. This is really a beautiful piece of sophistry. I don't even know which of the logical fallacies this is. Perhaps they didn't list it since it is so ridiculous. But its logic states that we can never know of a conspiracy because conspirators would never make mistakes that allow their conspiracy to be shown. Ya right.

We only say this about stuff the deniers make up or take out of context to proof an inside job. Which the deniers still fail to proof.

Also on the 'pull it' comment by Silverstien, are you denying that that is jargon used in the demolition industry, And if you were refering to pulling fireman, wouldn't "pull them" make a little more sense.

Been there, done that.

Finally, I would assume that at least some of you are aware that 'plausible deniability" became an admitted strategy of the U. S intelligence services under Eisenhower. And isn't it a perfect fit to get bumbling presidents (such as the present one and good old Ronnie) to carry out this strategy.

Assumption, not evidence.

[Brainster]

I know its a black and white world for most of you. Either you are a C. T nut or a beholden skeptic, but do you ever consider that people might not fall into neat groups. Brainster seems to suggest to this, but then apparently gets sleepy from this much thought. Believe it or not you can be curious about the events of that day without having reached firm conclusions about what the implications are. But that black and white world of conclusion before examination is so much more comforting.

I have spent several hours every day since May looking into 9-11 conspiracy theories. I honestly thought that somewhere along the line debunking would get harder; that there were people like the Scholars that would have much more sophisticated arguments than the Loose Change boys. It has not happened, but I have certainly examined the evidence, as have many others hereabouts and elsewhere.

With this in mind, I would suggest that much of America would find these comments of Bush disturbing. Ya they might think that Bush misspoke again, but a good percentage would question why a quote like this is not more widely known.

Because it's just another example of him engaging mouth without putting brain in gear.

None of you seemed to respond on what the official story is. When was Bush first notified that any plane had hit a tower? But I guess if Bush can't be held accountable for what he says, we can't hold him accountable for what he hears either so I guess that wouldn't count as well. Kind of reminds me of a story about a monkey with hands on his face.

He is accountable to the late night talk show hosts for what he says.

As to your insistence that it is up to the CT side to prove the case, why? Do you not believe that it is up to an administration to explain the events of that day first? Do you really believe that if it had been a democratic administration that you would not be insisting that they prove they were not negligent.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Besides, you cannot prove a negative. Prove that aliens have never visited Earth.

On the partisan issue, you will find that many people here are not supporters of the Bush Administration. Perry Logan and Gravy, in particular.

Some of you claim that nothing Bush says could be a hint of a conspiracy because why would he say things to incriminate himself. This idea is taken further on other 9-11 subjects with the claim that if anything comes out that supports a conspiracy it cannot be true because conspirators wouldn't have allowed such info to come out. This is really a beautiful piece of sophistry. I don't even know which of the logical fallacies this is. Perhaps they didn't list it since it is so ridiculous. But its logic states that we can never know of a conspiracy because conspirators would never make mistakes that allow their conspiracy to be shown. Ya right.

It is less ridiculous than believing that the conspirators would create and execute this tremendously complex and intricate plot and then blow it by making statements that amount to obvious confessions.

Also on the 'pull it' comment by Silverstien, are you denying that that is jargon used in the demolition industry, And if you were refering to pulling fireman, wouldn't "pull them" make a little more sense.

Yes, it would. While we're on the subject of things that make a little more sense, wouldn't it make a little more sense that he misspoke than that he blew it and gave away the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan, ever, ever?

[ktesibios]

So many of you say this is meaningless because it dosen't prove a conspiracy, but isn't some of the burden of proof on your side. Don't you need to prove that your administration has given a consistent and truthfull account of the days events?. If you dosen't have anything to hide then why not give an open account of what happened.


No. The statements "this utterance is not evidence that Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks" and "the administration has given a consistent and truthful account of the days events" have no logical connection at all. It isn't necessary to defend both to defend one.

The first is supported by the fact that an alternative interpretation exists which has equal or greater explanatory power, is more plausible and requires less multiplying of entities than the conspiracist's preferred interpretation. The second is 100% irrelevant to the meaning of your little video clip.

Stop trying to conflate the rejection of your paranoid conspiracy theories with support for the Bush administration. It's nonsense and a cheap rhetorical trick.

You're being laughed at across the entire political spectrum. Haven't you noticed?

[uk_dave]

You're being laughed at across the entire political spectrum. Haven't you noticed?

How very true.

[Architect]

1- The actual physical models that NIST tested did not collapse, and had only mild sagging in the floor trusses.

(i) Collapse isn't necessary, as the deflection caused by the sag results in failure of the external load bearing envelope.

(ii) Have you read the Edinburgh and Sheffield University Papers? Are you aware (say) of the Arup view of the failure?

2- the makeup of the NIST team included the same individuals that were at Oklahoma city, and that were on the FEMA commision. Namely Corley and Thornton engineering.

(iii) So?



3- The computer models they used exaggerated any reasonable expectation of temperatures within the towers. No samples from the deris from the towers showed signs of temps above 600 F, and models of fire temps for office combustibles do not exceed this either.


(iv) What's your evidence for that?


4- Computer models for NIST's calculations are not made available for the public. Many proffesional engineers have complained of this.

(v) Do you have any evidence of this apart from the one NCE article (which is superceded by others)?

5- No calculation for global collapse. They did make a cryptic calculation for collapse of the floors damaged by plane impact and fire, but they just assume that the whole tower would collapse after the initial floors did.

(vi) Speaking as someone who studied structures at university level, I don't see your point here. Progressive collapse under the imposed loadings is exactly what we would expect. Are you claiming that the lower structure should have resisted the loadings? I should warn you that this would be quite at odds with normal structural expectations.


2- As to your second point, it is clearly a mass generalization. I find that most C.T's are more willing to argue the facts of the case, while the so called skeptics claim it is so ridiculous why bother with the facts. This too is a generalization, but is based on personal experience.


I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I have seen far to many in the CT movement taking a partial view, culbably misunderstanding structural or fire engineering issues, or taking as granted the writings of (say) Jones or Griffiths.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

As to your insistence that it is up to the CT side to prove the case, why? Do you not believe that it is up to an administration to explain the events of that day first?
You seem not to be aware of the 9/11 Commission Report (which was linked to above) and the NIST report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, and the upcoming report on the collapse of WTC7.

The 9/11 Commission Report actually exposed some serious problems in communication between intelligence agencies within the U.S. government. It wasn't a bed of roses.

How do any of these constitute a lack of explanation from our government?

[uk_dave]

(vi) Speaking as someone who studied structures at university level, I don't see your point here. Progressive collapse under the imposed loadings is exactly what we would expect. Are you claiming that the lower structure should have resisted the loadings? I should warn you that this would be quite at odds with normal structural expectations.

But.... but....but...but.....


Dylan 'leader of the pack' Avery asserts:

The laws of physics dictate that twenty floors cannot destroy ninety.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1944&st=30

hmmmmmmmmm who to believe...... :rolleyes:

[Regnad Kcin]

I find that most C.T's are more willing to argue the facts of the case...Yikes!

...while the so called skeptics claim it is so ridiculous why bother with the facts.Er, okay.

[Oliver]

@General Question:

In german it´s pretty usual to say: "I saw this accident or crash",
even if we did not saw when it happend. Isn´t this kind of describing
an accident/crash the same in english? :confused:

[Regnad Kcin]

Dylan 'leader of the pack' Avery asserts:

The laws of physics dictate that twenty floors cannot destroy ninety.My oh my oh my.

[uk_dave]

@General Question:

In german it´s pretty usual to say: "I saw this accident or crash",
even if we did not saw when it happend. Isn´t this kind of describing
an accident/crash the same in english? :confused:

Yes, but in this case Bush is giving the impression that he watched the first crash happen live on TV, which is what has gotten the woowoo's panties in a bunch.

But then he has also said.....


Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die.
-- Dubya's attempt to explain that he understands the tough sacrifices being made in the Iraq war, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006


http://www.dubyaspeak.com/latestadditions.phtml

So, Bush can see on TV a plane crashing into the WTC towers as it happens AND can talk to dead people.

[Horatius]

Architect, at least you do admit there is some level of accountability upon the administration which is really my only point in this regard. I do not want to get too tangential with the NIST report here (perhaps we can take it up somewhere else), but here are the common criticisims of it.

Where has anyone said there is no need for accountability upon the administration? Pretty much everybody here thinks the government has to provide some explanation for what happened on 9/11. The difference is, we don't expect them to explain away a bunch of made-up fantasies while they do it. We want them to explain what we actually saw happen. And they did that. The NIST report isn't "tangential" to this discussion, it's one of the major factors. It was one of the means by which the government explained what happened.


2- the makeup of the NIST team included the same individuals that were at Oklahoma city, and that were on the FEMA commision. Namely Corley and Thornton engineering.

Every other point has been discussed to death. On this point, I'll just mention that it's only a valid critisism if you already believe in CTs. Why else would you complain that people experienced in analysing a building collapse were included on the panel of experts?

Seriously, give me one non-CT reason not to use these guys.



2- As to your second point, it is clearly a mass generalization. I find that most C.T's are more willing to argue the facts of the case, while the so called skeptics claim it is so ridiculous why bother with the facts. This too is a generalization, but is based on personal experience.


A mass generalization based on massive evidence, total evidence. Look up any threads on this topic here, you'll see it.

[Mercutio]

@General Question:

In german it´s pretty usual to say: "I saw this accident or crash",
even if we did not saw when it happend. Isn´t this kind of describing
an accident/crash the same in english? :confused:

Yes. "I saw this morning that Saddam was hanged." If I were speaking to you, that would be one of many perfectly acceptable ways of telling you that I had seen the news reports of his execution. If I were writing, I would probably be a bit more precise.

[Alt+F4]

So, Bush can see on TV a plane crashing into the WTC towers as it happens AND can talk to dead people.

Well Bush is trying to set up some sort of post-White House career. John Edward better watch out!

Here's my favorite Bushism:
"I'm occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." --Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

[Oliver]

Yes, but in this case Bush is giving the impression that he watched the first crash happen live on TV, which is what has gotten the woowoo's panties in a bunch. *snip*

But i don´t understand the CT´ists argument. Maybe he really
saw the images of the damaged tower and just said: "I saw
the crash when it happened". Maybe it´s a translation-thing
because it´s not surprising at all in german to describe it this
way. But thank you for your reply. :)

ETA: Thank you, too - Mercutio. It´s strange how CT´ists
make things up to support their conspiracies... :rolleyes:

[Architect]

But i don´t understand the CT´ists argument. Maybe he really
saw the images of the damaged tower and just said: "I saw
the crash when it happened". Maybe it´s a translation-thing
because it´s not surprising at all in german to describe it this
way. But thank you for your reply. :)

ETA: Thank you, too - Mercutio. It´s strange how CT´ists
make things up to support their conspiracies... :rolleyes:

It doesn't quite translate that way in this case, and that's what's got the woowoos in a twist. But as the others have pointed out, it's no big surprise given the man's other fantastic quotes.

Incidentally, it would be acceptable to say "I see that Saddam was hanged this morning" or "This morning I saw that Saddam was hanged".

I'd explain this in German, but frankly it's too much work.....;)

[Oliver]

It doesn't quite translate that way in this case, and that's what's got the woowoos in a twist. But as the others have pointed out, it's no big surprise given the man's other fantastic quotes.

Incidentally, it would be acceptable to say "I see that Saddam was hanged this morning" or "This morning I saw that Saddam was hanged".

I'd explain this in German, but frankly it's too much work.....;)

*lol* It is indeed not surprising after some pretty funny
statements of him. I guess i have to study his original
statement of him again to understand the differences. :)

[Horatius]

"Ich Bein Ein Berliner" (http://iamajellydoughnut.ytmnd.com/), anyone?

[Oliver]

"Ich Bein Ein Berliner" (http://iamajellydoughnut.ytmnd.com/), anyone?

PAh! Berlin is a country of it´s own - and i have more problems
to understand their slang as talking in english. :D

[Alt+F4]

if you beleive that the bush admin. rigged up a special secret CCTV feed and ran it to a school in florida where they installed equipment to view the feed just so the president could watch the plane hit the towers before going into the classroom to feign brain freeze for 20 minutes you dont need to be dubunked, you need to be slapped on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper

This post made me think....what if all the stupid conspiracy theories were thought out logistically? Not only would the man-power grow the conspiracy into the tens of thousands it would so clearly show how ridiculous the CTers are.

Take for example the CTers slant on the phone calls made from the planes. They try to get away with a quick one-liner, that it was "sophisticated voice-morphing technology". So that means the conspirators would have to:

1. Obtain the technology.
2. Learn how to use the technology.
3. Determine way in advance which passengers would make the fake calls.
4. Obtain 10 minute voice samples of each of the callers.
5. Make sure those persons got on the planes that day.
6. Obtain the phone books of the choosen passengers and figure out who they would call.
7. Coordinate the making of the fake calls with various phone companies.
8. Know so many personal details of everyone involved as to not raise suspicion.

[defaultdotxbe]

1. Obtain the technology.
2. Learn how to use the technology.
3. Determine way in advance which passengers would make the fake calls.
4. Obtain 10 minute voice samples of each of the callers.
5. Make sure those persons got on the planes that day.
6. Obtain the phone books of the choosen passengers and figure out who they would call.
7. Coordinate the making of the fake calls with various phone companies.
8. Know so many personal details of everyone involved as to not raise suspicion.

somewhere in there they need to collect incredibly detailed information regarding the persons family, including but not limited to alternate phone numbers to reach loved ones at, ability to recognize family members by voice, and information regarding location, contents, and combination to a locked safe

[Horatius]

This post made me think....what if all the stupid conspiracy theories were thought out logistically? Not only would the man-power grow the conspiracy into the tens of thousands it would so clearly show how ridiculous the CTers are.

Take for example the CTers slant on the phone calls made from the planes. They try to get away with a quick one-liner, that it was "sophisticated voice-morphing technology". So that means the conspirators would have to:

1. Obtain the technology.
2. Learn how to use the technology.
3. Determine way in advance which passengers would make the fake calls.
4. Obtain 10 minute voice samples of each of the callers.
5. Make sure those persons got on the planes that day.
6. Obtain the phone books of the choosen passengers and figure out who they would call.
7. Coordinate the making of the fake calls with various phone companies.
8. Know so many personal details of everyone involved as to not raise suspicion.

somewhere in there they need to collect incredibly detailed information regarding the persons family, including but not limited to alternate phone numbers to reach loved ones at, ability to recognize family members by voice, and information regarding location, contents, and combination to a locked safe

And then botch it all up by having one guy use both his first and last names when calling his mother.

Shades of Homer Simpson....

[pomeroo]

[quote=Non Believer;2215668]
3- The computer models they used exaggerated any reasonable expectation of temperatures within the towers. No samples from the deris from the towers showed signs of temps above 600 F, and models of fire temps for office combustibles do not exceed this either.


You are not telling the truth.

[Alt+F4]

And then botch it all up by having one guy use both his first and last names when calling his mother.

Shades of Homer Simpson....

Yes, they bring up Mark Bingham as "proof" but then when asked for the details they are "just asking questions".

[Horatius]

Yes, they bring up Mark Bingham as "proof" but then when asked for the details they are "just asking questions".

I've often wondered if his mother is like me. I have a hard time recognizing people's voices on the phone. Most of the people who call me regularly have figured this out, and just tell me right out who they are. If his mom is like this, and knows a lot of guys named Mark, it could explain a lot.

Even my Mom says, "Hi, it's mom" when she calls.

[Alt+F4]

Once I called my mom and said "Hey Ma, it's me!" and she said, "Who is this?".

How one refers to their loved ones is another problem the CTers ignore. Mom, Mommy, Ma.....

[defaultdotxbe]

I've often wondered if his mother is like me. I have a hard time recognizing people's voices on the phone. Most of the people who call me regularly have figured this out, and just tell me right out who they are. If his mom is like this, and knows a lot of guys named Mark, it could explain a lot.

Even my Mom says, "Hi, it's mom" when she calls.

so his mom had a hard time recognizing voices! thats PROOF that she wouldnt have been able to tell if it was her son or a voice morph, therefore PROOF that the government did it



on a serious note, his mother said he was a businessman and always used his full names with clients, kinda like a secretary answering her home "john smiths office" or soemthign to that effect

[uk_dave]

It's just another example of how real life aint like the movies.... or vice versa...anyway, it is hard to imagine the stress you would be under on a hijacked plane and facing death.

He used an introduction which his mother appears to have been familiar with, and if she wasn't then we can put it down to his stress and confusion, or if she was 'in on it' (we know how the woowoos love to 'ask questions' about the website registration) then why the hell make that odd little detail part of the story?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And then botch it all up by having one guy use both his first and last names when calling his mother.
And, in light of this slip-up, plant an agent to act as the alleged Mark Bingham's mother, or threaten the real mother (because threats work even better when you've just lost a son!) into explaining away the goof by saying, essentially, it's not unusual.

Frankly, I'd believe the poor mother over the heartless kooks...

[Cylinder]

None of you seemed to respond on what the official story is. When was Bush first notified that any plane had hit a tower?

At some time between 0850 and 0855.

n Sarasota, Florida, the presidential motorcade was arriving at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, where President Bush was to read to a class and talk about education. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told us he was standing with the President outside the classroom when Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove first informed them that a small, twin-engine plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. The President's reaction was that the incident must have been caused by pilot error.183

At 8:55, before entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who was at the White House. She recalled first telling the President it was a twin-engine aircraft-and then a commercial aircraft-that had struck the World Trade Center, adding "that's all we know right now, Mr. President."184

[28th Kingdom]

Because there is no evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job ...

Wow... just wow. That's all... nothing but one little ole word and it's name is wow.

[Pardalis]

Wow... just wow. That's all... nothing but one little ole word and it's name is wow.

Welcome to reality.

[Oliver]

Wow... just wow. That's all... nothing but one little ole word and it's name is wow.

Well, 28th Kingdom - i still don´t know what they knew
about Osama and his gang but i give a f*** about democrats
and republicans, Bush is an idiot and the war in iraq bothers
me a lot.

I live in germany and i initially was confused after watching
Loose Change. But i also did not find any evidence for an
inside job.

So what do you wanna know?

[Bell]

Wow... just wow. That's all... nothing but one little ole word and it's name is wow.

Shocking, isn't it?

[Horatius]

It's just another example of how real life aint like the movies.... or vice versa...anyway, it is hard to imagine the stress you would be under on a hijacked plane and facing death.

He used an introduction which his mother appears to have been familiar with, and if she wasn't then we can put it down to his stress and confusion, or if she was 'in on it' (we know how the woowoos love to 'ask questions' about the website registration) then why the hell make that odd little detail part of the story?

And it's another example of how twoofers don't seem to be able to follow a normal conversation. They always seem to get all flustered whenever someone uses a phrase or expresion that isn't copy-edited perfect. It's like they've never had a real conversation where you were expected to be able to "fill in the blanks" that normal people just assume you'll know or understand.

[Bell]

28th Kingdom, it takes a man to admit he was wrong (this in regards to your assumption that DM believes in intelligent design). Are you a man, are you going to admit?

So, you're not a man then, 28th??

[JimBenArm]

Wow... just wow. That's all... nothing but one little ole word and it's name is wow.

And it's nickname is Macaroon!

Hi darling!

Too bad you can't see this!

[JimBenArm]

So, you're not a man then, 28th??

Oh, come on, you know he's not! He's a child in a grown man's body, trying to get attention.

[Oliver]

Oh, come on, you know he's not! He's a child in a grown man's body, trying to get attention.


... and he ran away ... again ... :rolleyes:

[Non Believer]

It seems brainster, cylinder and architect are the only one of you capable of carrying on a a somewhat intelligent discussion. The rest of you seem either bent on explaining why he meant to say what he didn't say, or repeating that here is no evidence of a conspiracy (how deep).
Cylinder I have read the quotes you mention, but there are other reports and contradictions of these quotes. Bush himself (and to this day) claims he was not told about the attacks until Andy Card approached him. Though on other occasions he does remember having a conversation with Rove, where Rove told him a twin engine cessna had hit the towers. The initial report that Rove had told him came from reporter Eric Draper who over heard the incident himself.
The real upshot is that there are tens if not hundreds of contradictions of what went on between the president and the staff that morning. Fliescher in the sept 11 news conference claim that none of the staff knew before the president entered the classroom. But all of you seem to think this is perfectly O.K. Dosen't it usually arouse suspicion when a group of people cannot give even a semblance of a consistent story about our most important day. Apparently not.
Oliver on your analogy on Saddam, it would read this morning I saw Saddam hung rather than this morning I saw the report that Saddam had been hung. A big differnce for some of us.
Architect- you talk a good game, and I do appreciate your efforts at an intelligent conversation. But its too bad you resort to the name calling and character assasination stuff. But on to your responses. NIST did take samples from the columns in the debris and none (or maybe 95%) showed any indication that the steel had been at temps above 600 F. I can probably quote it chapter and verse if you really want. As for the models not needing to collapse, if you are building a model of a structure that collapsed your model needs to collapse. Second NIST did not say that the sagging in the floor trusses caused the external columns to bend, it said that it caused the interior core columns to bend. And Finally you claim that global collapse is a given in the statement that structural collapse is a given. Really? Please quote some pre 9-11 literature where this is stated. The structure is built at every floor to hold the weight above and then some. All we have with collapsing floors is some additional acceleration and lateral displacement, so why is it a given that a floor that was built to hold the weight above it suddenly has no chance. Plus if it such an easy calculation why not do it.

[defaultdotxbe]

NIST did take samples from the columns in the debris and none (or maybe 95%) showed any indication that the steel had been at temps above 600 F.
did you happen to read how they determined that? they analyzed the paint on the columns

they stated that many of the columns couldnt be analyzed because they didnt have enough paint on them

does it stand to reason that perhaps at temperature much higher than 600F the paint completely burned off? (and therefore couldnt be analyzed)

The structure is built at every floor to hold the weight above and then some. All we have with collapsing floors is some additional acceleration
i think you severely underestimate the effects of this additional velocity

[uk_dave]

Second NIST did not say that the sagging in the floor trusses caused the external columns to bend, it said that it caused the interior core columns to bend. And Finally you claim that global collapse is a given in the statement that structural collapse is a given. Really? Please quote some pre 9-11 literature where this is stated. The structure is built at every floor to hold the weight above and then some. All we have with collapsing floors is some additional acceleration and lateral displacement, so why is it a given that a floor that was built to hold the weight above it suddenly has no chance. Plus if it such an easy calculation why not do it.

ahhhhhh now I understand your problem.

OK, well actually NIST did state that the failure of the columns was due to the sagging of the floor trusses which depended on both the inner and outer columns for support. Photographic evidence shows the inward bowing of the outer columns and no doubt debris evidence also points to distortion of columns leading to failure.

But you really really don't understand the concept of floors. You claim that the floors were designed to support the structure above!! Lightweight steel trusses supporting corrugated steel pans decked with 3-4" of lightly reinforced concrete plus the dead and live loads of a normal office was all the floor structures were designed to take.

The floors were severely and immediately overloaded by the collapse of the structure above the impact zone.

And since these floor assemblies also restrained the inner and outer 'tube' of columns then their failure lead directly to the failure of the columns.

As we have all said time and time and time again

[Non Believer]

As usual neither of you have provided any specific evidence, or even a common sense response to my questions. Default you put to unrerlated quotes together and apparently consider it causation. does the nist report say temps over 600F cause all paint to be burned away. No. Do they say that temps over 600F will not be able to be analyzed because all the paint burns away. No, and so to answer your question no it dosen't stand to reason. and it is nice that you think I underestimate the acceleration, but prove it.
As for U.KD congratulatiuons this seems to be one of your first attempts at a discussion rather than your usual innuendos. Well if I don't understand floor design you certainly have done nothing to change that. You seem to point to my statement the the structure below is designed to support the structure above as the clue to my ignorance. This seems as much as a common sense statement as I can imagine, unless your point is that all structures transfer weight to the ground that they are standing on. Skilling and others have made statements that the towers were built to withstand additional loads other than the normal dead and live loads. These buildings were clearly built with extra capacity.

Lightweight steel trusses supporting corrugated steel pans decked with 3-4" of lightly reinforced concrete plus the dead and live loads of a normal office was all the floor structures were designed to take.

So your claim is that they were maxed out and could not take any more load? This is just clearly wrong according to statements by the engineers. Of course statements by experts have little place as evidence by all of you.By the way what is your source for the structural information on the towers, and where can the public go to get specific information? I am sure you are all for the public having information right?

[uk_dave]

As for U.KD congratulatiuons this seems to be one of your first attempts at a discussion rather than your usual innuendos. Well if I don't understand floor design you certainly have done nothing to change that.

You mean you don't understand the concept that a framed structure functions as a whole and each element of that structure is interdependent on other elements?

You don't understand that the floor assemblies are only designed to support their own dead load and the live load inposed upon them by normal office activities?

You don't understand that the columns transfered the vertical loads down to the foundations but required the internal floor assemblies to resist the lateral loads of wind?

You don't understand that unrestrained columns carrying a vertical load will tend to move and once this movement occurs they will fracture and break apart?

Well, i tried.

[Woody-]

So your claim is that they were maxed out and could not take any more load? This is just clearly wrong according to statements by the engineers. Of course statements by experts have little place as evidence by all of you.By the way what is your source for the structural information on the towers, and where can the public go to get specific information? I am sure you are all for the public having information right?

I'll try to paint a clearer picture. The columns in the core and walls supported the weight of all of the structure above them, each floor truss only had to support the weight of the people and contents of one story plus a safety factor. When the tower collapsed the columns of the top section no longer lined up with the columns of the remaining structure so a good portion of the falling mass was hitting the floor trusses which were not designed to handle anywhere near the load of the whole structure above them.

Here is what Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated had to say about the collapse in an interview shortly after the attacks.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT?011119fa_FACT

So what's going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below—bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall.

Bolding mine.

[defaultdotxbe]

Default you put to unrerlated quotes together and apparently consider it causation. does the nist report say temps over 600F cause all paint to be burned away. No. Do they say that temps over 600F will not be able to be analyzed because all the paint burns away. No, and so to answer your question no it dosen't stand to reason. and it is nice that you think I underestimate the acceleration, but prove it.
they also said the temperatures they were able to determine are not necessarily representative of all the columns in the impact area

or does that part not count because it doesnt agree with your forgone conclusions?

[Architect]

OMFG. You really are just ignoring everything that doesn't agree with you, aren't you. Well, on the off chance that you aren't just a 28th/PDoh/Se7ven/RB sock puppet lets try and pick up some (more) of your points.

Well if I don't understand floor design you certainly have done nothing to change that.

The whole structure (floors, core, outer facade) act together as one structure. The best analogy I can give you is if you think of it all as a big space frame of girder. The floors represent the intermediate struts, transferring loads from facade structure to core and so on.


Skilling and others have made statements that the towers were built to withstand additional loads other than the normal dead and live loads. These buildings were clearly built with extra capacity.


Yes. And that capacity is what allowed the building to stand up following the loss of structural elements in the initial explosions. However it is still a finite capacity.

In any event the Edinburgh University study and the Arup paper (you should be familiar with these, if you're serious about this) suggest that fire along could have caused failure (this contradicts the NIST paper).


Lightweight steel trusses supporting corrugated steel pans decked with 3-4" of lightly reinforced concrete plus the dead and live loads of a normal office was all the floor structures were designed to take.


A 100mm reinfoced slab is still pretty substantial, and in any event it had a permanent steel formwork which would act to provide further reinforcement. But what's your point?

So your claim is that they were maxed out and could not take any more load? This is just clearly wrong according to statements by the engineers.

Have you read the report? Trusses sag due to heat, trusses pull external facade structure inwards, structure fails (as would be expected), collapse is initiated.

Really mate, you're not arguing your case very well here. Whatever that case is....

[Non Believer]

You know if you guys are so intent that I have no understanding pull out a quote that shows it. Your main point seems to be that I don't understand that the building functions as a whole, where have I said anything to contradict such a mindblowingly basic premise as that. It seems to be a basic strategy with you guys to claim that I just don't understand, but unfortunately for you, you can't point to what that something is.

It appears UKD misunderstood my statement about the floors below the impacts ability to support the floors above as literally meaning the floor spans. This is not the case. The reference is to the remaining structure below the floor levels of the impact. Perhaps I should have referred to the stories below the impact zone. So to answer all your questions. Yes I understand all your basic points about the construction of the building, so perhaps now we can get on with the discussion

Is it your opinion that because I believe their should be at least a rough calculation for the effect of the upper structure upon the lower during a collapse means that I don't understand the building functions as a whole? Skilling's example clearly demonstrates that he could calculate for a weakened lower floors ability to support floors above, so what's the problem? Are you guys going to insist that there is no calculation available?

Quote from Woody-
bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall. bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall.

Where do you get these numbers Woody?

Also your claim on lateral displacement seems to be your own theory (in terms of a large amount of the collapsing material hitting the floor trusses). Unless you can quote it in NIST.

As for Architect TFA- you tell me I don't have a good argument, I don't think you even understand my argument. So here is the main argument - Remaining building structures below areas of damage still have their structural integrity intact, and offer resistance to the collapsing portion above. It seems likely that this resistance to collapse is measurable. We can estimate the weight of the top 20 or so floors, and measure their likely acceleration. So where are those numbers?

You claimed that asserting a building that has suffered a partial initial collapse of a floor would automatically lead to global collapse. As in your quote-

Progressive collapse under the imposed loadings is exactly what we would expect. Are you claiming that the lower structure should have resisted the loadings? I should warn you that this would be quite at odds with normal structural expectations.

I should warn you that is exactly what happened in one of the major high rise fires in Spain. a portion of the building collapsed, but the floors below held. Why does it make any sense that buildings that were built to withstand huge live loads (estimated to be 2000 times in the perimeter columns) would have no chance to withstand the collapse of the portion of the building above? I asked before to show evidence of your quote above, and you haven't. Instead you just repeat obvious understandings about the construction of the building, and then claim I am somehow ignorant of all this. Get it together mate.


Default- I did not say it was not possible that some of the steel may have reached temps above 600F. I said that the existing evidence did not support that theory.

[Gravy]

Skilling's example clearly demonstrates that he could calculate for a weakened lower floors ability to support floors above, so what's the problem?The problem is that the floors below don't have to support a floor or two above, they have to support the entire top of the building that's falling. No can do.

I should warn you that is exactly what happened in one of the major high rise fires in Spain. a portion of the building collapsed, but the floors below held.I should warn you that you have no idea what you're talking about. The concrete core of the Windsor building did not collapse. The outer steel columns in the fire affected areas did, causing the floors to hinge downward. Some floor plates remained attached to the core. The entire top of the building did not come crashing down on the bottom. The building did not suffer structural damage caused by an airliner strike.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879045993858691c3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3435)

[Non Believer]

So what you have said to contradict me Gravy. I didn't say a floor or two, I said twenty. The buildings were built to support these floors initially (or did you forget that). Yes there is going to be additionally force with collapse, but the structure was built to withstand additional force.
As for your Windsor example, what is that supposed to prove? it looks like several of the floors collapsed, but then stopped. So it actually helps my point, that initial collaspse does not lead automatically to global collapse. So I am going to repeat if you guys want to claim that I don't know what I am talking about, please refer to the exact quote I have made and how it is mistaken.

[uk_dave]

It appears UKD misunderstood my statement about the floors below the impacts ability to support the floors above as literally meaning the floor spans. This is not the case. The reference is to the remaining structure below the floor levels of the impact. Perhaps I should have referred to the stories below the impact zone. So to answer all your questions. Yes I understand all your basic points about the construction of the building, so perhaps now we can get on with the discussion



OK so you understand that the structure dealing with transfer of the vertical loads to the foundations has to be capable of handling that load and presumeably at some point you will mention redundancy so we'll get that one out of the way now.

The redundancy of the design is based upon a best guess as to the amount of damage a building could suffer in a reasonably predictable event and results in over design of the structure to compensate for this possible damage scenario. However if the damage exceeds this design allowance then the building will be stressed beyond it's capacity and catastrophic failure will occur.

Now, you also claim to understand that a frame building works as a whole, but even with this understanding you appear to still require clarification as to why the lower structure was unable to support the structure above the damage zone.

Well in simple terms the impact damage suffered by the structure took it very close to the limit of it's redundancy. However, it did remain standing. The subsequent fires and their effect of this highly stressed structure was the tipping point which caused catastrophic failure.

The lower structure (below the impact zone) would be able to support the load as obviously no additional mass is being added to the building, though the momentum of falling material would make that mass impose a much greater load on the structure than if it had been static.

But you have to take into account that the steel inner and outer column structure was dependant on the internal floors for restraint. This is the point you seem to fail to grasp.

By collapsing the top of the tower down through the structure below the imapct zone we are taking out the floor assemblies which are most definately not designed to support the mass of the floors above them. As each storey fails the outward forces of this mass of collapsing material is forcing out the external columns causing the phenomena witnessed on the day.

The columns are now unable to support themselves let alone the rapidly falling mass of collapsing material which is increasing in velocity with every storey which fails and is tearing the columns apart as the floors pull the external columns inward and the falling material pushes them outward.

So, unless you accept that without internal floors those towers would never had stood, you will never understand how they collapsed.

[Woody-]

Quote from Woody-
bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall. bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall.

Where do you get these numbers Woody?


I left the link when I posted it.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT?011119fa_FACT

It is what Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated had to say.


Also your claim on lateral displacement seems to be your own theory (in terms of a large amount of the collapsing material hitting the floor trusses).

It is a theory based on common sense, it would be virtually impossible for the upper sections to fall straight down so that the load bearing columns lined up with each other. With the tilt of the upper section even if some of the columns would line up others would not.

Unless you can quote it in NIST.

Since the NIST never modeled the collapse that would be impossible.


As for Architect TFA- you tell me I don't have a good argument, I don't think you even understand my argument. So here is the main argument - Remaining building structures below areas of damage still have their structural integrity intact

No, they remaining structures integrity was not intact, the hat trusses in the top few floors were now missing.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

The hat truss structure strengthened the core structure, unified the core and perimeter structures, and helped to support the large antenna mounted atop the North Tower. The hat truss, which contained both horizontal and sloping I-beams, connected core columns to each other, and connected the core to the perimeter walls. Most the beams connected core columns to each other, while a set of sixteen horizontal and sloping beams spanned the distance the core and perimeter walls. Eight of these, the outrigger trusses, connected the corners of the core to the perimeter walls, while another eight connected the centers of the core's periphery to the perimeter walls.

Without this "hat" the exterior columns and the core columns were no longer "unified".


I should warn you that is exactly what happened in one of the major high rise fires in Spain. a portion of the building collapsed, but the floors below held.

That would be the Windsor Tower. It had a concrete core and two heavily reinforced concrete technical floors, a couple of feature the WTC towers lacked. Funny thing is the collapse stopped at one of the technical floors.

[defaultdotxbe]

So what you have said to contradict me Gravy. I didn't say a floor or two, I said twenty. The buildings were built to support these floors initially (or did you forget that). Yes there is going to be additionally force with collapse, but the structure was built to withstand additional force.
As for your Windsor example, what is that supposed to prove? it looks like several of the floors collapsed, but then stopped. So it actually helps my point, that initial collaspse does not lead automatically to global collapse. So I am going to repeat if you guys want to claim that I don't know what I am talking about, please refer to the exact quote I have made and how it is mistaken.
you miss the point that the building were 2 entirely different constructions

the 17th floor (the one that held) and every floor below it were concrete supprted, while the floors above were steel framed around the concrete core, the steel collapsed, the concrete held

but i think the most important difference is the weight ratio, how much did the collapsing section of the windsor tower weigh? and how much did the collapsing section of the WTC weigh?

[Non Believer]

To Woody- I went to your link. there is a lot of info there. Could you please just tell me where that quote comes from ?
To UK Dave- so what you are saying is that as long as you get some (or maybe one) of the floor trusses to collapse that will bring down the whole building because that that floor truss will fall on the one below (which cannot support it) and thus lead to global collapse. Makes it sound like it would be pretty damn easy to bring these puppies down then. Why do demolition teams go to such efforts to bring them down when just dropping a couple of floor trusses should do the trick.

[Non Believer]

Another quick point.So what is the estimate of additional weight of making floor trusses collapse. And of course we must keep in mind that these floor trusses cannot just snap free of the interior and exterior columns, but must pull these columns down with them.

[uk_dave]

Makes it sound like it would be pretty damn easy to bring these puppies down then. Why do demolition teams go to such efforts to bring them down when just dropping a couple of floor trusses should do the trick.

Because controlled demolition tends to try to avoid the chaotic type of collapse witnessed at the WTC and which results in a hugely expensive and time consuming clean up operation.

[defaultdotxbe]

Why do demolition teams go to such efforts to bring them down when just dropping a couple of floor trusses should do the trick.
you may have heard of the "controlled" part of controlled demolition? if a CD firm brought down a building in the way the WTC was brought down theyd have their licenses revoked

[Non Believer]

Please explain the exact difference between a controlled demolition and what happened to the towers other than securing the area ?

[Horatius]

And of course we must keep in mind that these floor trusses cannot just snap free of the interior and exterior columns, but must pull these columns down with them.

Why can't they just snap free? Once they've snapped free, the columns no longer have the same lateral support, so any mass landing on or around them will tend to deflect them laterally, and then gravity will pull them down.

False assumptions are not the way to convince us.

[Horatius]

Please explain the exact difference between a controlled demolition and what happened to the towers other than securing the area ?

You did see WTC7 collapse, right?


I admit, it's a tiny difference, but there you go.....

[defaultdotxbe]

Please explain the exact difference between a controlled demolition and what happened to the towers other than securing the area ?
dozens of other buildings damaged (6 destroyed or damaged beyond repair) 16+acre debris field, raging fires burning for months, 8 month clean up operation...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Please explain the exact difference between a controlled demolition and what happened to the towers other than securing the area ?
Seriously? You can't tell the difference between the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 and that of a controlled demolition? Ouch.

A building subjected to controlled demolition collapses inward, not outward, as the Twin Towers did.

[Non Believer]

As to the demolition question- you can only have a controlled demolition when there are no buildings located within a certain range of the building to be demolished. where is evidence that the spreading of the debris out radially from the towers was greater than average for a building of its size. Certainly the collapse into the footrint is as good as could be expexcted from a regular controlled demolition.
As for your point Horatius, you are aware that NIST rejected the pancake theory correct? And yes you are right demolitions are usually done from the bottom as in the case of 7. But my point is that if they will fall so neatly from just releasing the floor trusses near the top why are they bothering with these fancier type demolitions.

[Non Believer]

Cl- The cloud of dust blows outward wherever the demolition charges are placed.

[uk_dave]

As for your point Horatius, you are aware that NIST rejected the pancake theory correct? And yes you are right demolitions are usually done from the bottom as in the case of 7. But my point is that if they will fall so neatly from just releasing the floor trusses near the top why are they bothering with these fancier type demolitions.

Only as far as the collapse initiation.

There were always two possible events which initiated the collapse:

1. Floor assemblies letting go of the columns and falling down through the building

or

2. Columns failing through being pulled by the sagging floor assemblies

Evidence compiled by NIST indicates that the latter was the culprit.

After initiation the collapse itself is too chaotic to be accurately modelled to the degree that NIST would have to in order to provide a blow by blow account of how the structure collapsed. But since that wasn't their brief anyway and it served no useful purpose in establishing whether any building codes required changing, they did not carry out such a detailed model.

But an educated knowledge of framed structures informs any architect or structural engineer of the processes which occured durng the progressive collapse.

[Architect]

As for Architect TFA- you tell me I don't have a good argument, I don't think you even understand my argument. So here is the main argument - Remaining building structures below areas of damage still have their structural integrity intact, and offer resistance to the collapsing portion above. It seems likely that this resistance to collapse is measurable. We can estimate the weight of the top 20 or so floors, and measure their likely acceleration. So where are those numbers?

You claimed that asserting a building that has suffered a partial initial collapse of a floor would automatically lead to global collapse. As in your quote-

Progressive collapse under the imposed loadings is exactly what we would expect. Are you claiming that the lower structure should have resisted the loadings? I should warn you that this would be quite at odds with normal structural expectations.

I should warn you that is exactly what happened in one of the major high rise fires in Spain. a portion of the building collapsed, but the floors below held. Why does it make any sense that buildings that were built to withstand huge live loads (estimated to be 2000 times in the perimeter columns) would have no chance to withstand the collapse of the portion of the building above? I asked before to show evidence of your quote above, and you haven't. Instead you just repeat obvious understandings about the construction of the building, and then claim I am somehow ignorant of all this. Get it together mate.



1. Ronan Point.

2. Windsor did not have a completely steel frame, nor did it have the hat trusses providing an element of support.

3. Failure of the structure under the additional shear loadings is exactly what we would expect. Numbers are un-necessary.

[Non Believer]

Well that seems pretty fair UK. Yes, You cannot have it both ways. The floors cannot break away at the joints with the columns and simultaneously be pulling the columns laterally. There is an obvious tradeoff in these two forces There is clearly enough lateral support in the lattice form of the exterior columns to not collapse with this pancaking (joint breaking theory). Additionally the interior core would have remained standing as well. Did the lateral bracing of the floor trusses to the exterior give the interior columns additional strength? Yes. Would the interior columns have remained standing with a pancake type collapse? Yes as well. They would have been weakened but would have remained standing.
So in a sense, I believe we are closer to a similar understanding of these events U.K (and NIST's explanation of them). I think we can go on to argue about the calculations for initial collapse, but I would like too try to close the book on the question of global collapse.
I know we cannot completely distinguish between initial collpse and global. Whatever the conditions of initial collapse are, they will dictate the calculation for global collapse. For example the initial collapse on the 94th floor may have been a simultanoues at all points in the structure on the floor (which seems to be the needed assumption considering the symmetry of the collapse), or it may have been a portion of the floor. there is that floor term again. Can we consider the term floor to mean the entire structure at a certain level, and refer to the floor trusses as such.
Anyway, what it comes down too is that you claim that global collapse is a given, but cannot really be modeled due to the uncertainty and chaos. Of course I have a problem with both of these positions. Maybe it is commonly understood that any type of major initial collapse will automatically bring down the rest of steel framed buildings, but show me the pre 9-11 statements in this regard then. As for the too chaotic part, i will give you that it may be complicated. And it may be that we can never model it in a complete blow by blow manner, but too be able to simply say that instability spread throught the building is so ambiguous it defies credibility.

[Gravy]

So what you have said to contradict me Gravy. I didn't say a floor or two, I said twenty. The buildings were built to support these floors initially (or did you forget that). Yes there is going to be additionally force with collapse, but the structure was built to withstand additional force.No, the Twin Towers were not build to survive the tops of the buildings falling through the bottoms. You keep talking about floors. We're talking about the entire top of the building.

As for your Windsor example, what is that supposed to prove?That you have no idea what you're talking about, as I said.

it looks like several of the floors collapsed, but then stopped. And the core, NonBeliever? Did that collapse? And the construction below the fire-affected area, how does it differ from that above?

So it actually helps my point, that initial collaspse does not lead automatically to global collapse. No, it shows that you need to read for comprehension.

So I am going to repeat if you guys want to claim that I don't know what I am talking about, please refer to the exact quote I have made and how it is mistaken.See above.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Cl- The cloud of dust blows outward wherever the demolition charges are placed.
Dust, yes, an a bit of debris. None of this is in any way similar to the large amounts of debris we all saw falling away from the towers.

Buildings subjected to controlled demolition fall as "cleanly" as they do because of the amount of work that goes into the "controlled" part of the demolition. The tower collapses were a mess...

Besides, when was the last time you saw a building demolished from the top down?

[Non Believer]

Gravy- I think were done here. You don't seem to offer anything other than you think I am stupid. As I have asked please spell out how so ? The difference between the floors below the damage and those above is that those below were structurally intact. Thefore we are not prone to guesswork as to the amount of damage done (and therfore their structural integrity) as in the damaged floors.
Do you think if just the top floor collapsed the whole building would have collapsed? Or maybe if just one joint collapsed the whole building was bound to go. Ya I'm being sarcastic, but at what floor did it become obvious that the floors below couldn't handle a collapse There has got to be some actual science here.

[Bell]

Gravy- I think were done here. You don't seem to offer anything other than you think I am stupid. As I have asked please spell out how so ? The difference between the floors below the damage and those above is that those below were structurally intact. Thefore we are not prone to guesswork as to the amount of damage done (and therfore their structural integrity) as in the damaged floors.
Do you think if just the top floor collapsed the whole building would have collapsed? Or maybe if just one joint collapsed the whole building was bound to go. Ya I'm being sarcastic, but at what floor did it become obvious that the floors below couldn't handle a collapse There has got to be some actual science here.

We are not talking about 1 floor or 1 joint. We are talking about +/- 30 floors of building for WTC2 and +/- 15 floors of building for WTC1 falling down on the rest of the buildings.

[Non Believer]

As I asked Bell, at what point does the damage above become unsupportable for the structure below? One floor, two. Five elephants put in one of the offices after dinner. Give me something.

Cl-To answer your question. Yes the one and only time I saw it was Sept 11. Here is one for you - When was the last time you saw a steel framed building collapse that wasn't from demolition

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Gravy- I think were done here. You don't seem to offer anything other than you think I am stupid. As I have asked please spell out how so ? The difference between the floors below the damage and those above is that those below were structurally intact.
No surprise, but Gravy's correct:

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

[...]

The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

[...]

Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse.
concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

[babazaroni]

Do you think if just the top floor collapsed the whole building would have collapsed? Or maybe if just one joint collapsed the whole building was bound to go. Ya I'm being sarcastic, but at what floor did it become obvious that the floors below couldn't handle a collapse There has got to be some actual science here.

The outer columns buckled around the impact point. The hat truss will transfer the entire load the outer columns were supporting (including the outer columns themselves) to the core columns.

The damaged core cannot support this massive load and the dynamics associated with the transfer. And of course the individual floors below cannot as well.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When was the last time you saw a steel framed building collapse that wasn't from demolition
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

[A spokesman for the fire service] added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
And this building didn't even suffer structural damage and likely had its fireproofing intact. Unless you want to argue that the British government demolished a toilet paper plant...

[Bell]

As I asked Bell, at what point does the damage above become unsupportable for the structure below? One floor, two. Five elephants put in one of the offices after dinner. Give me something.

I have no idea about numbers, and can't cite the NIST report from head, as some members can :)

But uk_dave touched upon this some posts up:

You don't understand that the floor assemblies are only designed to support their own dead load and the live load inposed upon them by normal office activities?

[Horatius]

As for your point Horatius, you are aware that NIST rejected the pancake theory correct? And yes you are right demolitions are usually done from the bottom as in the case of 7. But my point is that if they will fall so neatly from just releasing the floor trusses near the top why are they bothering with these fancier type demolitions.

Okay, I think you completely missed my point. My bad for assuming you knew how to read sarcasm. The collapse of the towers was different from a CD in that they caused enough damage to WTC7 to cause it to burn and collapse, similar to what others mentioned about other buildings. That doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) happen in a "controlled demolition". That's what the "Controlled" part means.

And even if you believe the collapse of WTC7 wasn't directly linked to the damage caused by the towers, will you admit the fires and other damage were so linked? Because even that much damage to WTC7 puts the lie to the CD hypothesis.

[Gravy]

As I asked Bell, at what point does the damage above become unsupportable for the structure below? One floor, two. Five elephants put in one of the offices after dinner. Give me something.
We on this forum may not know what the minimum would be, but we know that when an entire 12-story section (plus a 350-ton antenna) buckles, rotates, and collapses, that is sufficient for the collapse to progress. And we know that a 30-story section buckling, rotating, and collapsing, as below, is more than sufficient.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790459973129bf48.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904548158cd6279.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790459972bc68ba6.jpg

[Woody-]

To Woody- I went to your link. there is a lot of info there. Could you please just tell me where that quote comes from ?


They person that wrote the article interviewed Mark Loizeaux, what part of that do you not understand. Here is the full quote if your interested.

"First of all, you've got the obvious damage to the exterior frame from the airplane—if you count the number of external columns missing from the sides the planes hit, there are about two-thirds of the total. And the buildings are still standing, which is amazing—even with all those columns missing, the gravity loads have found alternate pathways. O.K., but you've got fires—jet-fuel fires, which the building is not designed for, and you've also got lots of paper in there. Now, paper cooks. A paper fire is like a coal-mine fire: it keeps burning as long as oxygen gets to it. And you're high in the building, up in the wind, plenty of oxygen. So you've got a hot fire. And you've got these floor trusses, made of fairly thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the impact. And you have all this open space—clear span from perimeter to core—with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid right through that space to the core, which doesn't have any reinforced concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to spread everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working—the sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are likely cut. So what's going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below—bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall."


To UK Dave- so what you are saying is that as long as you get some (or maybe one) of the floor trusses to collapse that will bring down the whole building because that that floor truss will fall on the one below (which cannot support it) and thus lead to global collapse. Makes it sound like it would be pretty damn easy to bring these puppies down then. Why do demolition teams go to such efforts to bring them down when just dropping a couple of floor trusses should do the trick.

Maybe because when the drop them on purpose the want to "control" where they fall. They dont want them damaging every other structure for several hundred feet around.


Please explain the exact difference between a controlled demolition and what happened to the towers other than securing the area ?

Your kidding aren't you? The big differences would be the damage or total destruction of WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC7, WFC3, WFC4, St. Nicholess Church, Bankers Trust building, Verizon Building, etc etc.


Cl- The cloud of dust blows outward wherever the demolition charges are placed.

The cloud of dust is generally not from the explosives, its from the falling structure expelling trapped air.

[Non Believer]

Cl- I'll start with you. you have got to be kidding if you think that taco stands roof collapsing is even in the ballpark. Maybe some of rolls of toilet paper stacked up kept the roof from coming down completely. O.K lets change it too when was the last time you saw a high rise steel framed building collapse completely that wasn't a demolition.
As to your point on windsor, why didn't the collapse spread laterally as you say happened in WTC.
Horatius- Do you really believe you could bring down the towers in a controlled demolition without damaging the nearby buildings. Good luck.

[uk_dave]

Cl- I'll start with you. you have got to be kidding if you think that taco stands roof collapsing is even in the ballpark. Maybe some of rolls of toilet paper stacked up kept the roof from coming down completely. O.K lets change it too when was the last time you saw a high rise steel framed building collapse completely that wasn't a demolition.
As to your point on windsor, why didn't the collapse spread laterally as you say happened in WTC.
Horatius- Do you really believe you could bring down the towers in a controlled demolition without damaging the nearby buildings. Good luck.

Actually the toilet roll factory is a VERY good example for two reasons:

1. It shows how a steel framed structure without 20 storeys of loading on top of it can fail catastrophically due to fire alone (You know that annoying type of fire which is only fueled by household objects such as desks and chairs and...ermmm... toilet paper)

2. Toilet paper is the best answer for the majority of CT questions

[Horatius]

Horatius- Do you really believe you could bring down the towers in a controlled demolition without damaging the nearby buildings. Good luck.

I'm not a CD expert, so I can't say what they could accomplish. I will mention that no one has ever done a CD on such a large structure, and no one has ever done it in a top-down manner, and no one have ever done it after a plane has hit the building, and no one has ever done it after the building has been burning for an hour or so.

So, do you really believe someone would do (at least) four (4) completely new things all at once, twice in a row?

And not make any mistakes?

[defaultdotxbe]

Actually the toilet roll factory is a VERY good example for two reasons:

1. It shows how a steel framed structure without 20 storeys of loading on top of it can fail catastrophically due to fire alone (You know that annoying type of fire which is only fueled by household objects such as desks and chairs and...ermmm... toilet paper)

2. Toilet paper is the best answer for the majority of CT questions
#1 also applies to the kader toy factory

[Architect]

Non Believer

This is quite simple, and I don't see why you have difficulty with it (barring the fact that you clearly have no experience whatsoever of structural design).

1. Buildings are designed to accommodate dead (i.e. self weight) and live (people, furniture, wind, etc) loadings. These design values are then subject to safety factors based on credible risks, set out in various design codes and standards.

2. Design of framed buildings such as the tower are complex; I do not intend to discuss in any depth the various jointing and connection techniques however a joint - welded or bolted - will only be designed to take specific loadings. These loadings will be for specific directions.

3. Lest anyone doubt how complex this is, then remember the case of Citicorp. If you have no idea about Citicorp without having to Google, then do not trouble this board with any claims of structural expertise.

4. It may be helpful if you consider the complete tower structure - floors, inner core, and outer facade - as acting together as a large girder, or space frame (you must be familiar with both of these). Damage to or loss of one element can and will have an effect on the overall stability of the "girder".

5. The towers were built with spare structural capacity, however a significant part of this was compromised in the initial impact. Further damage was cause dby the fires. Although the designers claim that the design was built to accommodate an aircraft impact, no calculations have ever been produced to show the extent of this (I refer you again to Citicorp) and there were (a) no applicable design codes or guidance at the time and (b) limited computer modelling techniques available at the time.

6. The fire weakened the floor trusses, causing sag. This in turn led to deflection of the outer structural envelope (or facade). The steel could not accommodate the required loadings at this point (a buckled structural member will be weaker, even before we consider the impact of buckling on joints). The hat trusses probably served to redistribute loads, but ultimately exceeded design capacity and failed.

7. At this point, failure of the supporting structure for the upper part of the building is inevitable and what is frankly a massive amount of material begins to move downwards at a 9.8ms/-2. The momentum and mass are substantial.

8. The structure below is not intact, because the hat trusses are no longer doing their work and the bracing effect of the upper structure has been lost. It is overly simplistic to suggest that this portion of the building is sound.

9. The steel joints, etc. are not designed to accommodate the loadings imposed by the impact of this massive mass and momentum. They are deisgned to accommodate normal loadings, which will be many magnitudes less. They will fail; there is no doubt about this, from a structural perspective. The time involved with be absolutely minimal. Although not a NIST document, Greening's paper (again you should be familiar with this) gives you a very basic idea of the kind of issues we're talking about.

10. At this point the collapse becomes progressive and self-perpetuating.

Let me give you a simple analogy (not my own, I hasten to add).

If you put a brick on your head, there will be no problems. You will be able to walk around (subject to balance), suffer no injuries, and so on. The additional dead lead of the brick (together with minimal live load for wind, etc. on it's faces) is well within the "design" load of your skeleton.

If we drop that brick from just 0.5 metres (far less than the floor-ceiling height of wtc) then you will suffer severe head injuries. If we drop it 2.5 metres, you will suffer major head and spinal injuries. Realistically, you will die.

Now as far as I can see, the ol' canard you're attempting to pull out of the hat is the one about the resistence of each floor sufficiently slowing down the collapse in order to markedly influence total collapse time.

I have to tell you that the sheer mass and momentum of the upper (mobile) structure is such that it's not going to make bugger all difference. We're talking about tiny fractions of a second each floor, not seconds.

This is what we, as trained professionals, would expect. Number crunching is irrelevant.

Now if you want to prove differently, don't demand that other people do your work for you. Go and find out how each joint was formed. Calculate the design loadings, then look at the imposed loadings from the collapse. Calculate the length of time to failure. THEN come back and tell us if there's an issue or not.

And this, I believe, is where YOU have a problem. You don't understand structures in any competent manner. Hell I work on tall structures every day of the working week and I have to get a team of real experts from Arup do the number crunching for me, so what hope has a lay person got?

Intead you try to claim that NIST have been remiss in not calculating something wholly irrelevant.

You cherry pick facts and soundbites, other (wholly irrelevant) cases such as Windsor. Tell me, NB, do you really know about the Citicorp Building without looking it up on Google? Have you ever heard of Ronan Point? How much do you understand about the actual performance of fires without going to Wiki?

Have you read the Sheffield University research papers? Were you even aware that Sheffield University (it's in the UK, btw)has a highly respected fire engineering unit?

Did you know that Edinburgh University (that's in the UK too) had published a paper suggesting through fire modelling that the trusses would have failed even withouth the aircraft impact? Likewise have you seen the Arup papers which seperately came to the same conclusion?

Have you looked at the various engineering media reports on the collapse (NCE would be a good start, but I suspect you've never heard of that either) in order to try and understand how we as an industry have viewed and understood the collapse.

I can go on all day with a list of architectural, structural, and fire engineering issues which you have to understand before you can even begin to comment on the NIST report with any degree of confidence. Each of these disciplines requires between 5 and 7 years of university study, with intensive study.

So with the deepest respect, don't read a few general web sites and then come back and start chucking about structural theories or "common sense".

[David Wong]

Well, that's done.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As I asked Bell, at what point does the damage above become unsupportable for the structure below? One floor, two. Five elephants put in one of the offices after dinner. Give me something.

Cl-To answer your question. Yes the one and only time I saw it was Sept 11. Here is one for you - When was the last time you saw a steel framed building collapse that wasn't from demolition
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf) Section
2.2.1.1
American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors
2.2.1.5
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the
1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the
upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.
2.2.2.1
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors.

For WTC 1, the top 12 floors of the tower translates into 8x10^9 joules of the total 4x10^11 joules. So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1. Extrapolating this on to WTC 2 (since the above mentioned report does not specify the amount PE contained above the WTC 2 impact point) we get the following:
WTC 2 => top 26 floors => ~23.6% of WTC 2.
If ~10.9% of WTC 1 translates into 8x10^9 joules PE
Then ~23.6% of WTC 2 translates into N joules PE
Therefore 10.9/8*10^9 = 23.6/N
=> 10.9*N/8*10^9 = 23.6
=> 10.9*N = 23.6*(8*10^9)
=> N = 23.6*(8*10^9)/10.9
=> N = 17321100917.431192660550458715596
=> N = 17.3*10^9 joules PE
=> ~34.7% of the entire PE of WTC 2
http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry

[Gravy]

Well, that's done.
David Wong, you slay me.

[LashL]

Non Believer

This is quite simple, and I don't see why you have difficulty with it (barring the fact that you clearly have no experience whatsoever of structural design).

1. Buildings are designed to accommodate dead (i.e. self weight) and live (people, furniture, wind, etc) loadings. These design values are then subject to safety factors based on credible risks, set out in various design codes and standards.

2. Design of framed buildings such as the tower are complex; I do not intend to discuss in any depth the various jointing and connection techniques however a joint - welded or bolted - will only be designed to take specific loadings. These loadings will be for specific directions.

3. Lest anyone doubt how complex this is, then remember the case of Citicorp. If you have no idea about Citicorp without having to Google, then do not trouble this board with any claims of structural expertise.

4. It may be helpful if you consider the complete tower structure - floors, inner core, and outer facade - as acting together as a large girder, or space frame (you must be familiar with both of these). Damage to or loss of one element can and will have an effect on the overall stability of the "girder".

5. The towers were built with spare structural capacity, however a significant part of this was compromised in the initial impact. Further damage was cause dby the fires. Although the designers claim that the design was built to accommodate an aircraft impact, no calculations have ever been produced to show the extent of this (I refer you again to Citicorp) and there were (a) no applicable design codes or guidance at the time and (b) limited computer modelling techniques available at the time.

6. The fire weakened the floor trusses, causing sag. This in turn led to deflection of the outer structural envelope (or facade). The steel could not accommodate the required loadings at this point (a buckled structural member will be weaker, even before we consider the impact of buckling on joints). The hat trusses probably served to redistribute loads, but ultimately exceeded design capacity and failed.

7. At this point, failure of the supporting structure for the upper part of the building is inevitable and what is frankly a massive amount of material begins to move downwards at a 9.8ms/-2. The momentum and mass are substantial.

8. The structure below is not intact, because the hat trusses are no longer doing their work and the bracing effect of the upper structure has been lost. It is overly simplistic to suggest that this portion of the building is sound.

9. The steel joints, etc. are not designed to accommodate the loadings imposed by the impact of this massive mass and momentum. They are deisgned to accommodate normal loadings, which will be many magnitudes less. They will fail; there is no doubt about this, from a structural perspective. The time involved with be absolutely minimal. Although not a NIST document, Greening's paper (again you should be familiar with this) gives you a very basic idea of the kind of issues we're talking about.

10. At this point the collapse becomes progressive and self-perpetuating.

Let me give you a simple analogy (not my own, I hasten to add).

If you put a brick on your head, there will be no problems. You will be able to walk around (subject to balance), suffer no injuries, and so on. The additional dead lead of the brick (together with minimal live load for wind, etc. on it's faces) is well within the "design" load of your skeleton.

If we drop that brick from just 0.5 metres (far less than the floor-ceiling height of wtc) then you will suffer severe head injuries. If we drop it 2.5 metres, you will suffer major head and spinal injuries. Realistically, you will die.

Now as far as I can see, the ol' canard you're attempting to pull out of the hat is the one about the resistence of each floor sufficiently slowing down the collapse in order to markedly influence total collapse time.

I have to tell you that the sheer mass and momentum of the upper (mobile) structure is such that it's not going to make bugger all difference. We're talking about tiny fractions of a second each floor, not seconds.

This is what we, as trained professionals, would expect. Number crunching is irrelevant.

Now if you want to prove differently, don't demand that other people do your work for you. Go and find out how each joint was formed. Calculate the design loadings, then look at the imposed loadings from the collapse. Calculate the length of time to failure. THEN come back and tell us if there's an issue or not.

And this, I believe, is where YOU have a problem. You don't understand structures in any competent manner. Hell I work on tall structures every day of the working week and I have to get a team of real experts from Arup do the number crunching for me, so what hope has a lay person got?

Intead you try to claim that NIST have been remiss in not calculating something wholly irrelevant.

You cherry pick facts and soundbites, other (wholly irrelevant) cases such as Windsor. Tell me, NB, do you really know about the Citicorp Building without looking it up on Google? Have you ever heard of Ronan Point? How much do you understand about the actual performance of fires without going to Wiki?

Have you read the Sheffield University research papers? Were you even aware that Sheffield University (it's in the UK, btw)has a highly respected fire engineering unit?

Did you know that Edinburgh University (that's in the UK too) had published a paper suggesting through fire modelling that the trusses would have failed even withouth the aircraft impact? Likewise have you seen the Arup papers which seperately came to the same conclusion?

Have you looked at the various engineering media reports on the collapse (NCE would be a good start, but I suspect you've never heard of that either) in order to try and understand how we as an industry have viewed and understood the collapse.

I can go on all day with a list of architectural, structural, and fire engineering issues which you have to understand before you can even begin to comment on the NIST report with any degree of confidence. Each of these disciplines requires between 5 and 7 years of university study, with intensive study.

So with the deepest respect, don't read a few general web sites and then come back and start chucking about structural theories or "common sense".

Now that is definitely a post worth repeating.

Often.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Cl- I'll start with you. you have got to be kidding if you think that taco stands roof collapsing is even in the ballpark. Maybe some of rolls of toilet paper stacked up kept the roof from coming down completely.
I met your challenge as it was stated. Your failure in constructing it is not my problem.

O.K lets change it too when was the last time you saw a high rise steel framed building collapse completely that wasn't a demolition.
Personally, never. I do, however, vaguely remember an accident in which a commercial airliner crashed into a hotel building (or apartment complex). The impacted section of the building did collapse so that there was an entire section of it missing, from top to bottom.

Even that, however, is quite a different situation than what occurred to the twin towers on 9/11. And that's really the point...

When was the last time you saw a building similar in design to the twin towers impacted by a commercial airliner, resulting in severe structural damage and significant fires for upwards of an hour?

As to your point on windsor, why didn't the collapse spread laterally as you say happened in WTC.
Do you know that it didn't? Have you seen video of it's collapse?

[Architect]

Now that is definitely a post worth repeating.

Often.


Feel free, but please take out the obvious typos. ;)

[Architect]

Personally, never. I do, however, vaguely remember an accident in which a commercial airliner crashed into a hotel building (or apartment complex). The impacted section of the building did collapse so that there was an entire section of it missing, from top to bottom.



Do you mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bijlmer747crash.jpg

[Horatius]

Now that is definitely a post worth repeating.

Often.

And I bet we're going to have to repeat it.

Often.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you mean this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bijlmer747crash.jpg
Yep, that's the one. Thanks.

[Architect]

Non Believer

This is quite simple, and I don't see why you have difficulty with it (barring the fact that you clearly have no experience whatsoever of structural design).

1. Buildings are designed to accommodate dead (i.e. self weight) and live (people, furniture, wind, etc) loadings. These design values are then subject to safety factors based on credible risks, set out in various design codes and standards.

2. Design of framed buildings such as the tower is complex; I do not intend to discuss in any depth the various jointing and connection techniques however a joint - welded or bolted - will only be designed to take specific loadings. These loadings will be for specific directions.

3. Lest anyone doubt how complex this all is, then remember the case of the Citicorp building. If you have no idea about Citicorp without having to Google, then do not trouble this board with any claims of structural expertise.

4. It may be helpful if you consider the complete tower structure - floors, inner core, and outer facade - as acting together as a large girder, or space frame (you must be familiar with both of these). Damage to or loss of one element can and will have an effect on the overall stability of the "girder".

5. The towers were built with spare structural capacity, however a significant part of this was compromised in the initial impact. Further damage was cause dby the fires. Although the designers claim that the design was built to accommodate an aircraft impact, no calculations have ever been produced to show the extent of this (I refer you again to Citicorp); there were (a) no applicable design codes or guidance at the time and (b) limited computer modelling techniques available at the time.

6. The fire weakened the floor trusses, causing sag. This in turn led to deflection of the outer structural envelope (or facade). The steel could not accommodate the required loadings at this point (a buckled structural member will be weaker, even before we consider the impact of buckling on joints and risk of their failure). The hat trusses probably served to redistribute loads, but ultimately exceeded design capacity and failed.

7. At this point, failure of the supporting structure for the upper part of the building is inevitable and what is frankly a massive amount of material begins to move downwards at a 9.8ms/-2. The momentum and mass are substantial.

8. The structure below is not intact, because the hat trusses are no longer doing their work and the bracing effect of the upper structure has been lost. It is overly simplistic to suggest that this portion of the building is sound, a point usually overlooked by "alternative" theories.

9. The steel joints, etc. are not designed to accommodate the loadings imposed by the impact of this massive mass and momentum. They are deisgned to accommodate normal loadings, which will be many magnitudes less. They will fail; there is absolutely no doubt about this, from a structural perspective. The time involved with be absolutely minimal. Although not a NIST document, Greening's paper (again you should be familiar with this) gives you a very basic idea of the kind of issues we're talking about.

10. At this point the collapse becomes progressive and self-perpetuating.

Let me give you a simple analogy (not my own, I hasten to add, but a rather a very good, simple way of looking at the problem posted elsewhere).

If you put a brick on your head, there will be no problems. You will be able to walk around (subject to balance), suffer no injuries, and so on. The additional dead lead of the brick (together with minimal live load for wind, etc. on it's faces) is well within the "design" load of your skeleton.

If we drop that brick from just 0.5 metres (far less than the floor-ceiling height of wtc) then you will suffer major head injuries. If we drop it 2.5 metres, you will suffer severe head and spinal injuries. Realistically, you will die.

Now as far as I can see, the ol' canard you're attempting to pull out of the hat is the one about the resistence of each floor sufficiently slowing down the collapse in order to markedly influence total collapse time.

I have to tell you that the sheer mass and momentum of the upper (mobile) structure is such that it's going to make bugger-all difference. We're talking about tiny fractions of a second each floor, not seconds.

This is what we, as trained professionals, would expect. Number crunching is irrelevant.

Now if you want to prove differently, don't demand that other people do your work for you. Go and find out how each joint was formed. Calculate the design loadings, then look at the imposed loadings from the collapse. Calculate the length of time to failure. THEN come back and tell us if there's an issue or not.

And this, I believe, is where YOU have a problem. You don't understand structures in any competent manner. Hell I work on tall structures every day of the working week and I have to get a team of real experts from Arup do the number crunching for me on a tall buildings project, so what hope has a lay person got?

Intead you try to claim that NIST have been remiss in not calculating something wholly irrelevant.

You cherry pick facts and soundbites, other (wholly irrelevant) cases such as Windsor. Tell me, NB, do you really know about the Citicorp Building without looking it up on Google? Have you ever heard of Ronan Point? How much do you understand about the actual performance of fires without going to Wiki?

Have you read the Sheffield University research papers? Were you even aware that Sheffield University (it's in the UK, btw)has a highly respected fire engineering unit?

Did you know that Edinburgh University (that's in the UK too) had published a paper suggesting through fire modelling that the trusses would have failed even withouth the aircraft impact? Likewise have you seen the Arup papers which seperately came to the same conclusion?

When considering the susceptibility of steel buildings to fire, were you aware that every single building standards/regulatory code in the West (and I suspect elsewhere) had identified the problem for at least 20 years (when I started training) and probably a lot longer? Were you aware that steel firms such as Corus publish extensive advice on this?

Do you know how we protect steel against fire? Are you aware of the different systems available and fire ratings? Hell, do you even know what intumescent means without looking it up on Google?

Have you looked at the various engineering media reports on the collapse (NCE would be a good start, but I suspect you've never heard of that either) in order to try and understand how we as an industry have viewed and understood the collapse.

I can go on all day with a list of architectural, structural, and fire engineering issues which you have to understand before you can even begin to comment on the NIST report with any degree of confidence. Each of these disciplines requires between 5 and 7 years of a university education, with intensive study across a whole range of specialist topics. This is then followed by practical, on-the-job training.

So with the deepest respect, don't read a few general web sites and then come back and start chucking about structural theories or "common sense".

[Larry Lovage]

I have to tell you that the sheer mass and momentum of the upper (mobile) structure is such that it's not going to make bugger-all difference.
Misplaced "not" in that sentence. Just fyi.

I'm interested in this sentence, but it doesn't seem to be complete:When considering the susceptibility of steel buildings to fire, were you aware that every single building standards/regulatory code in the West (and I suspect elsewhere) identifies the for at least 20 years (when I started training) and probably a lot longer?

[Larry Lovage]

If you put a brick on your head, there will be no problems. You will be able to walk around (subject to balance), suffer no injuries, and so on. The additional dead lead of the brick (together with minimal live load for wind, etc. on it's faces) is well within the "design" load of your skeleton.

If we drop that brick from just 0.5 metres (far less than the floor-ceiling height of wtc) then you will suffer major head injuries. If we drop it 2.5 metres, you will suffer severe head and spinal injuries. Realistically, you will die.
Now imagine that the brick is replaced by a 1 ton weight, and try to estimate just how much less than freefall acceleration will be displayed by the falling ton weight.

[Architect]

Larry,

Text fixed, thanks. Damned painkillers!!

THe point I was trying to make was that it's actually quite a light object, in comparison the strength of your skeleton, and yet from a height it would kill you with no difficulty.

The 1 tonne parallel is nice, because of course you would offer so little resistance to it that there would be practically no discernable impact on free fall acceleration.

Clearly the CT mob would expect it to knock your head off, but then rest on your shoulders.....

[JimBenArm]

Larry,

Text fixed, thanks. Damned painkillers!!

THe point I was trying to make was that it's actually quite a light object, in comparison the strength of your skeleton, and yet from a height it would kill you with no difficulty.

The 1 tonne parallel is nice, because of course you would offer so little resistance to it that there would be practically no discernable impact on free fall acceleration.

Clearly the CT mob would expect it to knock your head off, but then rest on your shoulders.....

Well, in their case, since it is hitting something of such high density, it might well bounce off without any discernable effects.

[Architect]

Well, in their case, since it is hitting something of such high density, it might well bounce off without any discernable effects.

Surely it would hammer the victim into the ground? :p

[Larry Lovage]

Yes, but only after stopping at every obstruction (like a bone), so that each element begins to freefall from a standing start, which means that the body will be crushed in no less than 17 seconds. And will be inside out and upside down at the bottom of it. (c) Judy Wood.

[Architect]

No, no, no.....arthoscopic explosives take out all the joints first.......eejit!

[Bell]

Now imagine that the brick is replaced by a 1 ton weight, and try to estimate just how much less than freefall acceleration will be displayed by the falling ton weight.

I have seen a lot of footage on TV where a 1 ton weight was dropped onto someone, and that person survived.

[Non Believer]

Same old same old. Architect you in particular with all your education must surely be able to answer my two simple questions. How much weight is necessary to bring down a floor truss at the WTC? And if you and the others have such a firm understanding of all this, how many floors could have collapsed from the top of the building that the structure below would hold?

You can't have it both ways, claim there is absolute science in all of this, but not to be able to explain a bit. Yes, you and the others have constantly repeated the information on hat trusses, floor trusses etc, but you do not seem to be able to answer the simplest of specific questions.

I am a little amazed at the the brick on the head analogy. If that was a true analogy it would mean that we would drop it perhaps an inch, and that it would then drive our body into a 5 inch pancake above the ground. So why don'y you try that one again.

The idea that the public is not able to be involved in a discussion of this sort is one I hear repeatedly in this forum. As I have said before, sciences have gradations of understanding. General principles can usually be explained in a manner of minutes. Calculus may take years to master, but its basic premise is explainable within minutes. Stop hiding behind your expertise. If you have it show it. So far I still see nothing beyond my comprehension.

As to Sheffield and the rest, no I am not familiar with that. So I guess according to you, I (and the rest of the American public) should now go home and let the rest of you make fun of how ignorant we are. But I will add I am willing to listen to the principles that you feel are relavant from these studies, but do not tell me I have to go study them before an intelligent conversation can be had.

So let me say this clearly, the citizenry of a country must have enough understanding of the events that shape their lives to discuss the nature of those events with either the government or the corporations who claim to understand them. So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this informati9on to its citizenry. The more information that is kept secret, either directly or indirectly, the less a citizenry have a true democracy.

One last unimportant item. I see Bell has tried a metaphor with a one ton weight. I must give it to you that one works better. Unfortunately the bottom of the structure weighed much more than the top, so try again.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Same old same old. Architect you in particular with all your education must surely be able to answer my two simple questions. How much weight is necessary to bring down a floor truss at the WTC? And if you and the others have such a firm understanding of all this, how many floors could have collapsed from the top of the building that the structure below would hold?
...

Can you show that the load on the floor trusses did not exceed what the floor trusses could handle?

Can you show that the structure below the top 12 floors of WTC 1, and/or the structure below the top 26 floors of WTC 2 could have held?

The events of that day, and the NIST reports conclude they could not. The onus is on you to prove these conclusions wrong.

[Architect]

NB

You do realise that you've not made a single substantive response to any of the points I make, don't you?


How much weight is necessary to bring down a floor truss at the WTC? And if you and the others have such a firm understanding of all this, how many floors could have collapsed from the top of the building that the structure below would hold?

1. Floor collapse did not initiate failure; deformation due to truss sag led to compromise of the outer load bearing frame.

2. Frankly, I doubt if it would have held any. One thing is certain, however; when such a massive part of the building moves, then nothing is going to stop it. The structure was not designed to accommodate a dynamic load of that kind of magnitude

3. If you don't like my professional view, you go and do the calculations (Greening did). I'm not here to waste my time doing structural modelling for months just because you don't understand design loading issues.

You can't have it both ways, claim there is absolute science in all of this, but not to be able to explain a bit. Yes, you and the others have constantly repeated the information on hat trusses, floor trusses etc, but you do not seem to be able to answer the simplest of specific questions.

4. That's because the question is irrelevant to the underlying failure mechanism.

I am a little amazed at the the brick on the head analogy. If that was a true analogy it would mean that we would drop it perhaps an inch, and that it would then drive our body into a 5 inch pancake above the ground. So why don'y you try that one again.

5. Wrong. A brick might weight 2 kg or so, only a 40th of normal bodyweight. Size for size and weight for weight, it's a more relevant example that the tonne weight.

6. However that doesn't matter because it was simply an easy analogy in order that you might understand the effects of a dynamic as opposed to static load.


The idea that the public is not able to be involved in a discussion of this sort is one I hear repeatedly in this forum. As I have said before, sciences have gradations of understanding. General principles can usually be explained in a manner of minutes.

7. Really? I'm sure that you've seen ER. Do explain to me how to perform an arthroscopy and the attendant procedures. No? I didn't think so.....


Calculus may take years to master, but its basic premise is explainable within minutes. Stop hiding behind your expertise. If you have it show it. So far I still see nothing beyond my comprehension.


8. Actually, no. I can't speak for the US but generally we study Maths - including Calculus - for 5 to 6 years at UK secondary schools. Why? Because it's rather complex.

As to Sheffield and the rest, no I am not familiar with that. So I guess according to you, I (and the rest of the American public) should now go home and let the rest of you make fun of how ignorant we are. But I will add I am willing to listen to the principles that you feel are relavant from these studies, but do not tell me I have to go study them before an intelligent conversation can be had.

9. So you are bandying about structural theories and claiming to understand the basic premise, and yet you have never read these papers? You don't understand the structural issues, do you?

So let me say this clearly, the citizenry of a country must have enough understanding of the events that shape their lives to discuss the nature of those events with either the government or the corporations who claim to understand them. So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this informati9on to its citizenry. The more information that is kept secret, either directly or indirectly, the less a citizenry have a true democracy.

10. But the NIST report has explained it to the satisfaction of the trained professionals best placed to understand them.

11. Just as a matter of interest, even if the structural calculations were in the report in what way would you be qualified to understand them? Do you also need the report to explain structures for you?

One last unimportant item. I see Bell has tried a metaphor with a one ton weight. I must give it to you that one works better. Unfortunately the bottom of the structure weighed much more than the top, so try again.

12. It's nothing to with weight; see above posts.



(thumps head against keyboard)

[Horatius]

So let me say this clearly, the citizenry of a country must have enough understanding of the events that shape their lives to discuss the nature of those events with either the government or the corporations who claim to understand them. So it is the responsibility of said governments to provide and explain this information to its citizenry. The more information that is kept secret, either directly or indirectly, the less a citizenry have a true democracy.


I think you have that exactly backwards. It's the duty of individuals to study at least enough to understand what's going on in the world. Or would you have the government explain every issue, no matter how complicted, in baby-talk, for fear of leaving behind some citizens who have gone out of their way to not learn anything in their lives?

Have you read some of the threads here, where troothers exhibit a fundamental lack of understanding of even the simplest principles of physics, math, or any sicence? How much should we be expected to dumb it down for them?

If you want to play in the big leagues, you have to put in the time. It's just that simple.

You've asked how many floors it would take to cause a global collapse. Even if someone here gave you a simple answer*, would you accept it? If they explained in detail how they got the answer, would you understand it? Could you verify or refute it? If you can't, what's the point in providing it to you?







*Like, say, 6. A minimum of 6 floors are needed to cause a collapse. Prove me wrong!

[Architect]

You know if a car hits a tree, the police don't need to do a structural calculation in order to check that the shear value of the roots should have withstood the impact. Why? Because it's ruddy obvious!

Unless, of course, you're a CTer.....

[A W Smith]

Yes, but only after stopping at every obstruction (like a bone), so that each element begins to freefall from a standing start, which means that the body will be crushed in no less than 17 seconds. And will be inside out and upside down at the bottom of it. (c) Judy Wood.


Why of course not. The collapse of your skeleton would stop at your knees after slowing down! Then there would be this weight or ingot sitting there with Legs. well.. with your shins! And as each bone broke it would go Clunkety Clunk. Well ok just Clunk when it hit your head but slowing down to Clunkity Clunk by the time it hit your hips:)

[alexg]

I have a question for 'architect' or anyone else with pertinent info:

I am a complete layman with this issue but I have wondered when efforts are made to calculate how much falling load the lower floors could support without collapse are they taking into account the uneven distribution of the load. Say I stand up and hold my two arms straight up in the air intending to catch a heavy load - if it hits both arms at same time with even distribution I'll have a much easier time of catching it than if it lands more on one arm than the other.

[Architect]

It would be highly complex calculation, because (as people who look properly at the videos will realise) the collapse was not trully uniform. So do you calculate the simple verticle shear load on the joint assuming even distribution? How do you factor in the rotational movement? To what extent will the fire have already compromised the load bearing ability of joints.

In the end you make so many assumptions, that it just becomes education guesswork.........which is a waste of time, given that we know that the structure simply could never accomodate the global dynamic loads of such collapses.

All Greening does is demonstrate that a uniform collapse would result in progressive failure as seen. He doesn't really suggest that this is exactly what happened.

Does that help?

[alexg]

It would be highly complex calculation, because (as people who look properly at the videos will realise) the collapse was not trully uniform. So do you calculate the simple verticle shear load on the joint assuming even distribution? How do you factor in the rotational movement? To what extent will the fire have already compromised the load bearing ability of joints.

In the end you make so many assumptions, that it just becomes education guesswork.........which is a waste of time, given that we know that the structure simply could never accomodate the global dynamic loads of such collapses.

All Greening does is demonstrate that a uniform collapse would result in progressive failure as seen. He doesn't really suggest that this is exactly what happened.

Does that help?

Yes, thanks. The mind reels at the complexity of the actual event. The stubborn incredulity of the CT's, using no more than their common sense and intuition, is mind blowing.

[mortimer]

Non Believer,

In response to your original post, I'll ask this:

Does Canada border Mexico?

[Dog Town]

Yes, thanks. The mind reels at the complexity of the actual event. The stubborn incredulity of the CT's, using no more than their lack of common sense and intuition, is mind blowing.


Fixed that for ya.

[Architect]

NB

Why don't you try reading these before troubling us again:

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/courses_frameset.html (http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/courses_frameset.html)

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/completed_frameset.html (http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/completed_frameset.html)

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf (http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf)

Now here's two which you might find of interest because they don't agree with all of the NIST findings - and (shock) they're backed up with proper arguments:


http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/886


Bedtime reading from Amazon for you:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buildings-Fall-Down-Matthys-Levy/dp/039331152X/sr=8-1/qid=1167783672/ref=pd_ka_1/026-1596753-1146006?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Structures-Analysis-Materials-Design/dp/0333973860/sr=1-4/qid=1167783698/ref=sr_1_4/026-1596753-1146006?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Fire-Safety-Engineering-BIP2007/dp/0580418960/sr=1-11/qid=1167783724/ref=sr_1_11/026-1596753-1146006?ie=UTF8&s=books

Now, that old chestnut about steel not melting or failing in normal fires:


The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf) - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section1.pdf (http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section1.pdf) . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html (http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html) .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very
similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.building.govt.nz (http://www.building.govt.nz/))

Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe:http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/pdf/wb_bsc%20prin_07_05.pdf (http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/pdf/wb_bsc%20prin_07_05.pdf). Note the opening comments on page 14 and then the page after page of details necessary to provide fire protection at the end. You'll see BG also do seperate systems to encase and protect steel beams.

Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm (http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm)

Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/KLewis.pdf (http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/KLewis.pdf)

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts

On an academic front, will find this UK paper illuminating. Note that the example they use does not in fact collapse due to a normal - lets stress that - fire but does deform significantly. The summary does also flag up the need to consider the impact of fire after an explosion, I would suggest for fairly obvious reasons.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/img/extlink.gif http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Others/default.htm (http://www.umist.ac.uk/departments/civil/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Others/default.htm)

I can go on, but its getting too much like a day at the office. And I reckon that's enough reading material for you for some considerable time.

Do let me know when you've actually bothered to educate yourself on the subject you like to talk about.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Calculus may take years to master, but its basic premise is explainable within minutes.
OK, let's hear it...

Stop hiding behind your expertise. If you have it show it. So far I still see nothing beyond my comprehension.
But you show no outward signs of comprehension. Surely if you understand what Architect is saying, and "know" it to be false, you can easily show exactly where he is wrong.

[Horatius]

I can go on, but its getting too much like a day at the office. And I reckon that's enough reading material for you for some considerable time.

Do let me know when you've actually bothered to educate yourself on the subject you like to talk about.



There he goes, hiding behind his expertise again!


When did having expertise become a bad thing?

Seriously, any bets on what effect all that has?

[chippy]

Just wondering what the explanation is for Bush claiming he watched the first plane hit the North tower before entering the classroom to consider the significance of a pet goat. Was he a profit, liar, fool, or stooge?

I know nobody is talking about this anymore, but it's a well-established fact that Bush is not smart and says stupid things that probably aren't true. Thus his comment about seeing a plane hit the first tower is 99.9% likely to be another dumb thing out of his mouth and is not a conspiracy.

[Non Believer]

O. K. Arch-So I am supposed to respond to your questions which are not even specific to the discussion. I will admit that I like to focus on the issue at hand, and that has been global collapse. Yet you want to discuss certain areas of expertise to see about whether I am qualified to be involved in such a discussion. My position is, that if you can tie these areas of expertise directly into the discussion of global collapse then they become directly relevant. Otherwise I am not interested. Fireproofing codes come into play on the floors where the fire occurred, I am trying to discuss the undamaged floors ability to support the load above them. Besides I do not have to understand every fire code to understand the nature of the fireproofing that was at WTC.
Your insistence to layout all this elementary material over and over must be time consuming for you. I know what a truss is, I know what live and dead loads are. Many of you seem to have dead loads.
Here are my responses to your responses-

1. Floor collapse did not initiate failure; deformation due to truss sag led to compromise of the outer load bearing frame.

And the floor feel. I call floor collapse when the floor falls with gravity towards the ground, whether caused by breaking at the joints or pulling the columns down with them it is the same end effect.

2. Frankly, I doubt if it would have held any. One thing is certain, however; when such a massive part of the building moves, then nothing is going to stop it. The structure was not designed to accommodate a dynamic load of that kind of magnitude

As I have said numerous times provide some kind of documentation of this opinion. You have not denied that the exterior columns could withstand additional live loads of 2000 percent

7. Really? I'm sure that you've seen ER. Do explain to me how to perform an arthroscopy and the attendant procedures. No? I didn't think so.....

Do you understand the word gradient. Man good thing you weren't a teacher

9. So you are bandying about structural theories and claiming to understand the basic premise, and yet you have never read these papers? You don't understand the structural issues, do you?

Thats not to the point. I don't have to have read anything to understand that you are not presenting evidence. If you were presenting something that I am not able to understand then you could have this argument. So be specific in what it is that I don't understand (boy I have wrote that one how many times now) in direct relation to the question of global collapse.

8. Actually, no. I can't speak for the US but generally we study Maths - including Calculus - for 5 to 6 years at UK secondary schools. Why? Because it's rather complex.

I think this shows your lack of ability to think in conceptual terms. What was it that Liebninz and Newton were trying to capture?

10. But the NIST report has explained it to the satisfaction of the trained professionals best placed to understand them.
Says who?

11. Just as a matter of interest, even if the structural calculations were in the report in what way would you be qualified to understand them? Do you also need the report to explain structures for you?

I would be able to understand them in the same way I am able to understand the assumptions that are made in the NIST report about the conditions of initial collapse.

So in you second to last message you actually almost answered the main question. And you finally admitted just like UK Dave did that there is just too much chaos and to multi factorial to calculate. Fine. Thank you. I realize you are also saying that it is common knowledge that loads such as the live loads of the falling floors of the towers were absolutely beyond any capacity of the lower floors ability to support them. Fine also-but you need to show some proof for that one.

So that brings us back to the weight on the head analogy. My initial criticism of you analogy was that it would not leave the persons body in a 6 inch pile, not that your weight estimate was extreme (that was Bells problem. Also you said it was a quick analogy to check if I understood static load. Fine, that's fair, but then you make another reference to the analogy and now you want to drop the brick the distance of the floors in the trade center onto the persons head. Now you are getting plain just sloppy. Clearly to be an effective the objects need to be to scale. The person is considerably shorter than the bottom 93 floors of tower, so to drop it the distance of one of the floors is ridiculous. Here is a real attempt to develop a model or analogy of the event. 93 of the 110 floors are below, so that is 84 percent of the building that is below. If we use a 6 foot man as the representation of that lower part of the building then we need an object falling onto him that is 8 inches in height. We will give you the benefit of the doubt and will call 1 floor (the distance you choose of an initial drop) 1 percent of the structure. This would be a drop of about .84 of an inch (sorry I don't do metric this time of night). Anyway, a drop such as this certainly would not be noticed by most of the unusually thick craniums on this forum.. The likelihood of such a drop driving the persons body into a pile a couple of inches tall really starts to show the absurdity of your claim. Try to find me any example of of free standing material with these proportions, with this same percentage drop, that results in that material being squashed to something of one to two percent of its original height. Good Luck

[babazaroni]

Non Believer, you should work on formatting. That post is unreadable. It's got your comments and others mixed in. Use the quote function or quote tags.

[beachnut]

What?

Non Believer is posting about what? Thread was about?

[Mr.D]

I know what live and dead loads are.


Perhaps, but do you know what the difference between DYNAMIC and LIVE loads are?


You have not denied that the exterior columns could withstand additional live loads of 2000 percent


Not here ...


I realize you are also saying that it is common knowledge that loads such as the live loads of the falling floors of the towers were absolutely beyond any capacity of the lower floors ability to support them.


Not here either.


So that brings us back to the weight on the head analogy. My initial criticism of you analogy was that it would not leave the persons body in a 6 inch pile, not that your weight estimate was extreme (that was Bells problem. Also you said it was a quick analogy to check if I understood static load. Fine, that's fair, but then you make another reference to the analogy and now you want to drop the brick the distance of the floors in the trade center onto the persons head. Now you are getting plain just sloppy. Clearly to be an effective the objects need to be to scale. The person is considerably shorter than the bottom 93 floors of tower, so to drop it the distance of one of the floors is ridiculous.


And strike three. Come back when you understand the difference between a LIVE load and a DYNAMICALLY CHANGING one. (It might also help if you understood what the lesson of the analogy was - and therefore what the analogy was limited to)

[Kage]

I don't know if I got the gist of this thread correctly----I didn't have the energy to wade through all the posts----but from what I have seen (very little) this thread discusses actual video footage of the president's misspeaking? I mean, there are seven pages of posts.

If that's it than this is the best (most sublimely ridiculous) CT theory ever. I can't even punctuate how I feel about this.

[gumboot]

I'm sure someone else has already pointed this out...

But it is pretty NORMAL for people to say "I saw X" on TV when they didn't actually see X on TV, they saw someone on TV tell them about X".

For example, there's a news article where the presenter talks about a terrible car crash, and then it cuts away to footage of the aftermath of the car crash with emergency personnel in attendance, and some mangled cars.

The following day, as you are talking to your friend "Hey, I saw this massive car crash on the news last night"

But you didn't actually see a car crash on the news, you saw someone talking about a car crash, and you saw the aftermath of a car crash. Likewise, when Bush said he saw a plane crash on the TV what he means is he LEARNED ABOUT a plane crash on the news. What he actually SAW was someone talking about a plane crash and the aftermath of a plane crash.

-Gumboot

[Myriad]

I realize you are also saying that it is common knowledge that loads such as the live loads of the falling floors of the towers were absolutely beyond any capacity of the lower floors ability to support them. Fine also-but you need to show some proof for that one.

Static load is a force, the force of gravity on structural materials.

Force = mass * acceleration.

Normally, in a tall building, a floor doesn't accelerate downward (that is, collapse) because the structure below it applies an upward force equal to the downward force of its weight. That's the static load.

But if a floor falls anyway, then in order to stop when it hits the next floor down, it has to accelerate. (The acceleration is upward, in order to decrease the downward velocity.) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a single floor (let's say the top floor of a structure) free-falls to the floor below. When it hits the floor below, it has to decelerate in order to stop. At what rate must it decelerate? Let's say the floors are made of a thin uniform layer of reinforced concrete. Once the floor hits, it has to decelerate over a very short distance. Think about it: if a concrete floor hits another concrete floor below it, and then keeps moving another two inches past that point, it can only be because it's broken or collapsed the floor below it, in which case it will clearly not have stopped and will keep falling. But let's allow for a generous, unrealistically large amount of crumbliness in the falling floor, and say it has a whole inch of compression over which to decelerate.

Let's say the floors were 100 inches apart to begin with.

So the floor accelerates for a fall of 100 inches at g, the acceleration of gravity, from a standing start. And then it has 1 inch of deceleration, to return to a standing start. The floor's mass stays the same, but (it can be shown with a bit of simple but tedious algebra) that the acceleration of the "stop" must be 100 times g. So the dynamic force, m*a, needed to stop the falling floor is 100 times the static force needed to hold the floor in place normally.

Of course that's a much simpler model than the WTC (it better describes the phenomenon of "pancaking" which the experts agree did not happen in the tower collapses). But it shows how dynamic loads can easily be many times larger than static loads.

So that brings us back to the weight on the head analogy. My initial criticism of you analogy was that it would not leave the persons body in a 6 inch pile, not that your weight estimate was extreme (that was Bells problem. Also you said it was a quick analogy to check if I understood static load. Fine, that's fair, but then you make another reference to the analogy and now you want to drop the brick the distance of the floors in the trade center onto the persons head. Now you are getting plain just sloppy. Clearly to be an effective the objects need to be to scale. The person is considerably shorter than the bottom 93 floors of tower, so to drop it the distance of one of the floors is ridiculous. Here is a real attempt to develop a model or analogy of the event. 93 of the 110 floors are below, so that is 84 percent of the building that is below. If we use a 6 foot man as the representation of that lower part of the building then we need an object falling onto him that is 8 inches in height. We will give you the benefit of the doubt and will call 1 floor (the distance you choose of an initial drop) 1 percent of the structure. This would be a drop of about .84 of an inch (sorry I don't do metric this time of night). Anyway, a drop such as this certainly would not be noticed by most of the unusually thick craniums on this forum.. The likelihood of such a drop driving the persons body into a pile a couple of inches tall really starts to show the absurdity of your claim. Try to find me any example of of free standing material with these proportions, with this same percentage drop, that results in that material being squashed to something of one to two percent of its original height. Good Luck

The problem is, things don't scale that way. You're probably thinking that your body is about the same strength as a skyscraper -- perhaps signficantly stronger because it has so much less mass to support, or less because its main structural members are made of bone instead of steel, but somewhere in the same ballpark. But can that really be true? Imagine being paralyzed in a vertical position (to be more like a skyscraper, without the ability to use joints and muscles to absorb impact) and dropped one tenth of your height, perhaps about seven inches. Without being able to bend your knees, you'd get a bit of a jolt, but your bones would not break, and you would not be seriously injured, especially if you were constrained from toppling sideways after your feet hit the ground. Now imagine dropping a WTC tower from one tenth of its height, about 137 feet. Assume there's some sort of cable arrangement to prevent the tower from toppling sideways after its base hit the ground (as long as the cables don't arrest the fall itself). What do you think would happen?

It occurs to me that you might think the tower should, or would, survive this treatment intact. If so, it's because you have misleading intuitiion of how things behave when scaled up.

Consider the following example: imagine a doll-house shaped like a two-story 2000 square foot (more or less typical U.S. suburban) house. Put a finger under one corner of the model, and lift up. What will happen? The doll house will tilt, of course, and remain completely intact.

You might think that this is due to the details of doll house construction. Most doll-house walls are thicker in scale than real walls, are solid wood or plastic rather than framework, have a flat rigid base that most houses don't have, and so forth. So instead, make the doll house a completely realistic model, using framework walls of exact scale studs, little tiny bricks, and so on. This won't be as strong as the conventional doll house, but it will be lighter, and I guarantee that you will still be able to lift one corner right off its foundations and tilt it with no damage.

Now try it with a real house. Dig a hole under one corner, and put a jack under it. (Pad the top of the jack with an appropriately scaled up giant rubber model of a fingertip, if you think it will help). Lift the corner with the jack. Will the house tilt? No, the corner will shear off upward while most of the rest of the house just sits there. (In fact, depending on how big a hole you dig to put the jack in, it might not even stay intact until you start lifting; it might start shearing downward under its own weight. Have you ever seen footage of what happens to a house when a sinkhole or flood erosion leaves one corner unsupported?)

Now try it with a 40-story building. Put your giant finger under a corner and start lifting. Will that whole corner shear upward like the corner of a house would? Probably not. Instead, your giant finger will break through the framework long before you can apply enough force to lift up the whole corner. It would be like trying to tilt a large wedding cake by lifting it from one edge of its bottom layer with a fork. The fork will just tear through the cake instead. Likewise, the giant finger would just pass through the framework of a large building until it did enough damage to cause a collapse of the sections above. (Substitute a powerful bomb for the giant finger, and you have a pretty good impression of what happened in the Oklahoma City bombing.)

And please consider, if you're thinking these analogies can't be valid because steel is a lot stronger than cake, you're missing the point about the importance of scale. I specified a large wedding cake because obviously you could easily tilt a cupcake with a fork with no deformation. But even a solid steel cupcake, if it were big enough, maybe somewhere around a half mile in diameter, would deform like jello rather than tilt if you tried to lift one side of its bottom edge.

So, you might think that a steel skyscraper should be able to survive a 100+ mph collision with the ground, or that damaged buildings should be able to topple sideways like cut-down trees, but they can't. That's the sort of false impression that might be gained from playing with much smaller scale models (perhaps made of K'Nex, Lego, Tinkertoys, or even building blocks) that are far more rigid relative to the scale. Any tall building, if pushed sideways by a sufficient force that's sufficiently well-distributed not to just tear through the framework, would fail near its base and begin collapsing vertically downward long before it tilted far enough to topple. Superman or the Hulk (or Mighty Mouse) might occasionally be depicted tilting a large building by lifting one corner and then putting it down again unharmed, but that couldn't really happen even if Superman really existed.

Speaking of toy models, the best toys that I'm aware of for getting an intuitive feel for the effect of scale on structural issues are the ones with rods that adhere magnetically to steel balls. (Unfortunately, they're expensive and you need a lot of them, at least several of the largest sets' worth, for this purpose.) The magnets are strong, so small structures feel very solid; you can toss them around, lift them by any one rod in the structure, and so forth (though any structure will usually break apart if dropped on the floor from a few feet). But since no individual connection can be stronger than allowed by the strength of the magnets (you get more strength if you arrange the polarities of the magnets carefully), and the rods and balls are rather heavy, larger structures run into interesting and realistic problems. For instance, you can build a tower only to a certain height, beyond which the bottom layer fails. Once a structure reaches a certain weight, it can only be lifted with great care, using both hands to distribute the force as much as possible. Larger still, and a model can't be lifted at all; if you try, your hands just crush the structure (if you lift from the bottom) or pull it apart (if you lift from the top).

Does this help explain why experienced structural engineers find it plausible that the wtc towers would continue to collapse (and implausible that the strength of the structures could arrest the collapse) once collapse began, under the conditions created by 9-11, without needing a detailed mathematical model of the exact process to convince them?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Architect]

Duplicate post

[Architect]

NB

With the deepest respect, you have not solely questioned the floor collapse loadings. You identified a wide and complex set of engineering and design issues and took pot shots at all of them on the basis of "common sense" and your own understanding of structural mechanics.

For example:

NIST did take samples from the columns in the debris and none (or maybe 95%) showed any indication that the steel had been at temps above 600 F.

and

Second NIST did not say that the sagging in the floor trusses caused the external columns to bend, it said that it caused the interior core columns to bend.

and

The structure is built at every floor to hold the weight above and then some.

and


All we have with collapsing floors is some additional acceleration and lateral displacement, so why is it a given that a floor that was built to hold the weight above it suddenly has no chance.


and


This seems as much as a common sense statement as I can imagine, unless your point is that all structures transfer weight to the ground that they are standing on. Skilling and others have made statements that the towers were built to withstand additional loads other than the normal dead and live loads. These buildings were clearly built with extra capacity.


and


Lightweight steel trusses supporting corrugated steel pans decked with 3-4" of lightly reinforced concrete plus the dead and live loads of a normal office was all the floor structures were designed to take.


and


I should warn you that is exactly what happened in one of the major high rise fires in Spain. a portion of the building collapsed, but the floors below held. Why does it make any sense that buildings that were built to withstand huge live loads (estimated to be 2000 times in the perimeter columns) would have no chance to withstand the collapse of the portion of the building above


Now what concerns me most in your recent post is that you acknowledge that you have not studied structures or fire engineering, you are unfamiliar with (for example) key papers on the subject of long-recognised problems with the performance of steel structures in fire, and so on. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that this in any way affects your ability to understand and comment meaningfully on the whole issue!

[Architect]

NB

Now let's look at your most recent post in a but more detail:

So I am supposed to respond to your questions which are not even specific to the discussion.

1. But they are relevant. Understanding the collapse properly requires a grasp of a broad range of closely linked specialisms including structural and fire engineering.

2. Example: you claim that the lower floors should have arrested the upper section, however in order to come to any view on this you would have to understand the design and loading characteristics of framed structures.

And the floor feel (sic). I call floor collapse when the floor falls with gravity towards the ground, whether caused by breaking at the joints or pulling the columns down with them it is the same end effect.

3. The structure failed, resulting in collapse of the floors together with everything else. What's your point?

As I have said numerous times provide some kind of documentation of this opinion. You have not denied that the exterior columns could withstand additional live loads of 2000 percent

4. Firstly, show that the columns could withstand additional loads of some 2000 percent - significantly in excess of normal safety factors, even for tall buildings. Then tell me what kind of loads? Transverse? Vertical? Dynamic? These are all critical to your argument and yet you don't seem to recognise it.

Do you understand the word gradient. Man good thing you weren't a teacher

5. So you think that you do understand medical procedures from watching ER and Casualty then? At least on a basic level? Amazing.

Thats not to the point. I don't have to have read anything to understand that you are not presenting evidence. If you were presenting something that I am not able to understand then you could have this argument. So be specific in what it is that I don't understand (boy I have wrote that one how many times now) in direct relation to the question of global collapse.

6. But time and time again you show that you do not, in fact, understand even basic structural mechanics. For example above you get quite confused by the whole 2000% safety factor. You question the performance of steel in a fire but don't understand basic fire proofing/engineering issues and aren't aware of important and relevant papers on the subject.

I think this shows your lack of ability to think in conceptual terms. What was it that Liebninz and Newton were trying to capture?

7. So, em, you understood the concept of complex calculus without the 5 or so years of study the rest of us all went through? Wow!

Says who?

8. Find me competent professionals who don't then. And I don't mean people with wholly irrelevant degrees in dentistry or theology. I mean substantive dissent from within the engineering or architectural communities.

I should warn you: there is none.

I would be able to understand them in the same way I am able to understand the assumptions that are made in the NIST report about the conditions of initial collapse.

9. Great. Perhaps you can tell me whether they should have used plastic or elastic modelling of the structure, in order that we know which format you would be able to follow.

Oh, sorry. You don't know what these are, do you?

I realize you are also saying that it is common knowledge that loads such as the live loads of the falling floors of the towers were absolutely beyond any capacity of the lower floors ability to support them. Fine also-but you need to show some proof for that one.

10. Nope. The collapse is entirely consistent with our expectations. If you think that the structure should have arrested the dynamic load from the collapsing upper portions of the building, then you show me the calculations.

Aha. Oops. Sorry. You can't do structural calculations, can you?

So that brings us back to the weight on the head analogy.

11. You really don't get this, do you? The analogy was simply to show that a dynamic load had significantly different characteristics, in a way that even someone with absolutely no comprehension of basic structures could understand.

[Non Believer]

Come on now architect. Get on with the challenge. Come up with a good anaogtnow If you were just giving a rough one before fine, but you opened the door. Show me any type of material with the proportions ot the trade centers (though if your up for it try the north tower), that had a similar degree of displacement, and ends up in a pile one to two percent of its original height. Ya you might get a deck of cards to do it. But it seems you all think that all that force of so much weight is obviously going to crush the hell out of what is below that should be easy to demonstrate with most materials. So show it.


As for the rest. Lets face it you have no evidence for anything at all. Only your word as an expert for what happened. Of course you weren't really trained to examine the collapse of buildings were you?

You claim that NIST has all the answers, but when we try to quote NIST , you need to fill in with your own suppositions. Not science! Not proof!

[Architect]

Come on now architect. Get on with the challenge. Come up with a good anaogtnow If you were just giving a rough one before fine, but you opened the door. Show me any type of material with the proportions ot the trade centers (though if your up for it try the north tower), that had a similar degree of displacement, and ends up in a pile one to two percent of its original height. Ya you might get a deck of cards to do it. But it seems you all think that all that force of so much weight is obviously going to crush the hell out of what is below that should be easy to demonstrate with most materials. So show it.



Oh my goodness, what an absolutely lame response.

Let's quickly recap:

1. You talked about a host of structural issues pertaining to the collapse and claimed you understood them.

2. I reviewed the key areas at the core (no pun intended) of the progressive collapse and drew your attention to some technical issues you should - if serious about 911 - have understood.

3. You then claimed only to be looking for a calculation to show that the lower part of the WTC structure should have arrested or deflected the collapse.

4. I pointed out that the calculation was meaningless because the failure of the frame (esp. the joints) was exactly what we would expect given that the imposed dynamic loads would exceed design capacity. To make life easy, I gave you a simple analogy too.

5. You threw a wobbly as to why university education and training in highly technical fields such as engineering was required to understand the issues involved, allegedly because it was all "simple". I seem to recall you claim to have learnt advance calculus within a few hours too.

6. Anw now, to cap it all, you've taken the simple analogy and tried to base your entire collapse argument on the similarities (or otherwise) between the failure of the WTC and a brick on someone's head.

Now take a deep breath, look back at all the posts, and tell us: do you really think you've actually managed to argue your case in any competent manner, or are you simply blowing off because you've been shown to have little or no understanding of your topic?

[Regnad Kcin]

Kudos to Architect. Most interesting stuff.