The questions us stupid shills can't answer

[tacodaemon]

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5075

[Pardalis]

Where's the question?

[JimBenArm]

Where's the question?
I think the question is "Who put the Bop in the Bop-de-Bop-de-Bop?"

[R.Mackey]

Perfect example of someone skimming through NIST without comprehending a word of it. I recall most of those figures ("2000%", etc.), but they're all taken wildly out of context.

Yeah, just try knocking 90% of the columns out on one floor, and see if it still stands... sheesh.

[T.A.M.]

same shaite, different shoveler...lol

TAM:)

[tacodaemon]

Perfect example of someone skimming through NIST without comprehending a word of it. I recall most of those figures ("2000%", etc.), but they're all taken wildly out of context.

Yeah, just try knocking 90% of the columns out on one floor, and see if it still stands... sheesh.


Yeah I don't grok how someone could read the whole NIST report while coming to the 100% opposite conclusion without thinking to themselves, "hey, maybe I'm not reading this quite right"

[Pardalis]

I think the question is "Who put the Bop in the Bop-de-Bop-de-Bop?"

That's not fair, only Little Richard could answer that one.

[Totovader]

Does anyone have access to this whitepaper that continues to be touted which shows that fire from fuel was taken into account? At best, I've seen that it "draws that conclusion" but I've seen no calculations or anything to that effect.

[beachnut]

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5075 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5075)
Yes honestdoltjoe says -
But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy!Why are all woos so challenged when it comes to facts?

They quote the 600 mph cruise speed of the old 707! Then you know why they list more fuel for the 707!?, they used over 50 percent more fuel, they had to carry more fuel. Only a dolt could not find out that the real max airspeed for a 707 is 355KCAS, and the new 757/767 is about 350KCAS. Oops, the challenged guy should research more. End of story, both jets are within 5KCAS of the max speed. But then who knows what KCAS is? Not a woo.

Next the WTC aircraft impact design was for a 707 low speed, low fuel, lost in the fog! NOT 600 MPH! So your impact energy is, wrong and should BE - for the low speed 707 = 386,215,069 Joules, or 184 pounds of TNT! Woos can never get it right. Did you guys flunk school?

Flight 175 was equal to 4,380,000,000 Joules, or 2,093 pounds of TNT.

Flight 11 was equal to 2,839,000,000 Joules, or 1,357 pounds of TNT.

This is about or more than an order of magnitude more energy. It is the V squared, it kills. (10 times more for you challenged LCF loyalist, BTW most JREF lay people know this stuff)

BTW, the planes on 9/11 all exceed the max allowed airspeed of the airframe. They only did it for a little while, mainly at the end and some of the planes a few times in the decent exceed airframe limits. But as seen the 757/767 did very well above their max speed. The 707, which is like the KC-135 would have lost some skin, maybe due to age but the high Q would have ripped some skin of the old 707 - and at the extreme over speeds of 9/11 the 707 would have been many times harder to fly, if the terrorist or even a kid could have. But a 757/767, any kid off the street could have done as well, or better than the terrorist. The new planes just fly better. Piece of CAKE. But the 707, they may have lost control. Just the facts of flying. (I am basing this on my experience in the KC-135, a 707 derivative.)

Yes, of course you must study and do major research to find out the 707 was low speed, low fuel, lost in the fog. But if you talk to the real, one an only, structural engineer, he will tell you. Why are CTers so challenged?

BTW, just the energy alone of flight 175, was enough to cut through all the steel columns. What was that! Why did the building stand. Because the plane also hit a few floors worth of 4 inch light weight concrete, windows, desks, wall board, ceiling support, ceiling tiles, carpet, curtains, bath rooms, doors, walls, etc. So some energy was used up crushing the plane and WTC stuff so the steel columns were not all cut, as seen on 9/11.

The rest of his stuff is just as bad. Lucky the woos are not building stuff for real people to use. Just make up some stuff and pass on lies.

[ktesibios]

Perfect example of someone skimming through NIST without comprehending a word of it. I recall most of those figures ("2000%", etc.), but they're all taken wildly out of context.

Yeah, just try knocking 90% of the columns out on one floor, and see if it still stands... sheesh.

This isn't the first time I've seen a troofer waving that "2000%" number around as if it were a factor of safety for the building as a whole.

What's funny is that the people who glom onto that number never seem to notice that it's actually "2000% of design live load" or to know the difference between dead load (the weight of the structure itself ) and live load (for a building, that's people, furniture, cubes, partitioning walls etc.) or to realize that for a building the size of the WTC towers the live load is going to be a lot smaller than the dead load.

Instead they take it as proof that the towers were twenty times stronger than they needed to be to hold themselves up, or that the weight of the floors above the impact zone could have been twenty times greater without overloading the columns in the impact floors.

Note to the "truth" community": when your mistakes are so egregious that an iggerant uneddicated technician who has never seen the inside of a college classroom can spot them without even trying, your arguments have collapsed under their own dead load.

[boloboffin]

This isn't the first time I've seen a troofer waving that "2000%" number around as if it were a factor of safety for the building as a whole.

What's funny is that the people who glom onto that number never seem to notice that it's actually "2000% of design live load" or to know the difference between dead load (the weight of the structure itself ) and live load (for a building, that's people, furniture, cubes, partitioning walls etc.) or to realize that for a building the size of the WTC towers the live load is going to be a lot smaller than the dead load.

Instead they take it as proof that the towers were twenty times stronger than they needed to be to hold themselves up, or that the weight of the floors above the impact zone could have been twenty times greater without overloading the columns in the impact floors.

Note to the "truth" community": when your mistakes are so egregious that an iggerant uneddicated technician who has never seen the inside of a college classroom can spot them without even trying, your arguments have collapsed under their own dead load.

Thanks for this. I finally understand why some truther back at DU is adamant about the towers being twenty times as strong as they need to be. Live load. Live load. Gad.

[jhunter1163]

I think the question is "Who put the Bop in the Bop-de-Bop-de-Bop?"

If you ever find out, let me know. I'd like to shake his hand. He made my baby fall in love with me.

Ba dum ching. Thank you, I'm here all weekend. Don't forget to tip your servers.

[AZCat]

Thanks for this. I finally understand why some truther back at DU is adamant about the towers being twenty times as strong as they need to be. Live load. Live load. Gad.

If they'd just read the darn NIST report it explains all this, but they either don't read it (preferring to let someone else tell them what to believe, as long as it <> NIST) or they don't understand it (in which case they shouldn't be arguing about factors of safety).