Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Splitting off from me? YIIIIIIIPE

chipmunk stew said:
My suggested starting post for split.

???
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm kind of honored that I was chosen as the chop point. Haven't been here more than a few days and as many posts and I saw myself as starting a massive thread. I haven't had this much reaction to something I wrote since I started my day-by-day history of World War II 11 years ago.

Of course, that was split between folks who loved it and those who were torqued off that I dishonored the Italian Army or didn't include the 99th Messkit Repair Battalion.
 
Kiwiwriter said:
Of course, that was split between folks who loved it and those who were torqued off that I dishonored the Italian Army or didn't include the 99th Messkit Repair Battalion.
Click to expand...

You brassed off the Fighting DinnerTrays? Man, you were playing with fire!
 
Criticism from the C-ration fans

kookbreaker said:
You brassed off the Fighting DinnerTrays? Man, you were playing with fire!
Click to expand...

Yes...I think that was a direct cause of the later accusations I got of plagiarism and imposture, and the guy who demanded my web page be banned. That individual also said the world would be a better place if I was dead.

I challenged him to repeat those views to my wife and daughter, and he promptly apologized....publicly.
 
Mutton-Head;1662022[B said:
Huntsman says[/B]
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.
Click to expand...

Actually, it seems you have no freaking clue on the subject. You may have read it, but you don't understand it.

A cutter charge is, specifically, an explosive. It is, more specifically, a high-speed explosive, typically a shaped charge, that is used to cut through an object.

IN contrast, cratering charges tend to be low-speed and unshaped.

Cutter charges also must be placed directly onto the structures they are intended to cut, in order to work correctly. You don't place a cutter charge on a piece of drywall and expect it to cut the steel column behind it. You have to open up the wall and put it on the column, or use a significantly larger amount of explosive. If you only set explosive on one side of a sturcture instead of both (still assuming you have direct contact), it requires four times the amount of explosive. Each little bit of distance you go away increease the amount of explosive needed exponentially. Either way, the explosives argument is an exercise in nonsense. You get one of two possible scenarios:

1. The charges were placed correctly. No one working noticed the people cutting holes in walls, no one noticed the drywall patches, no one noticed the work during the weeks that would have been required assuming the best circumstances and unrestricted access. No securoty guards noticed demolition or construction teams. THis is nonsense.

2. The charges were not placed ocrrectly, and larger amounts were used. No one noticed the 50lb. charges sitting under thier desk. Notice that a block of C-4 weighing in at about 2.2 lbs. is about the size of a brick. For relatively small steel columns (1 inch), assuming you're a few feet away, you're still looking at requiring something on the order of 3 to 4 of these blocks. And that's to cut a single, relatively small column. IF they had enough to cut all the columns in the building, considering the size of the columns, one floor would have been pretty well unuseable, because it'd be too hard to walk around the huge piles of explosive laying around everywhere.

Now, on thermite, is is NOT explosive, and is NOT used as a "cutting charge" by anyone who still has functional brain cells remaining. Thermite is an incendiary. It burns bright, hot, and fast. It also contains no sulfur.

Thermite is specifically used in the military for destruction of property. Not by cutting, but my melting huge freakin holes in it. Have to leave a vehicle behind? Set off a thermite grenade on the hood, it'll melt through the engine block...enemy can't use it. You cut use it to cut steel, but it wouldn't be very effective. The reason being that once it starts burning, it only goes one direction. Down. Through whatever is under it. So if you want to cut a vertical steel column, you have to actuall drill holes in the column for the thermite to go in, and hope the thermite spreads enough on the way down to cut it.

In any case, a thermite reaction would have left molten steel, as well as significant residues of aluminum oxide and melted iron (not steel) from the thermite itself. This was not found.

Jones is speaking far outside his field, in areas he has no knowledge or experience in.
 
Last edited:
Slight change of subject while we await Mutton-Head's return...

please see this thread--http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4997

Here is a CT (and Mr.Pickering does think something smells about 9-11) who actually goes out and asks expertise--and when the conclusion doesn't go his way, he posts it anyway. Note the reaction.

I invited Mr. Pickering to come over here and post--I also promised that we would be politer than his reception on LC, or, to quote:

Hutch wrote:
If you do take me up on this, I will promise to (1) post links for you if you PM them to me until you have sufficient posts to do so and (2) slap upside the head any JREF'er that gets out of line with you.
Click to expand...

You have been warned...;) :D :eek:
 
Good morning!

Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?
 

Attachments

  • 9-11%20Picture5[1].jpg
    9-11%20Picture5[1].jpg
    70.1 KB · Views: 8
  • 9-11%20Picture6[1].jpg
    9-11%20Picture6[1].jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 5
Mutton-Head said:
Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Click to expand...

Because you can't understand some basic concepts, they are doing grade-school work? I think not.

Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?
Click to expand...

What you say is technically true, but what you find wrong fails to account for the sheer mass of the building.

Let me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why?

ETA: Is it me, or is this starting to sound a lot like its leading to Roxdog 'telescoping' complaint?
 
Construction of the towers began in 1968 and was completed in 1972 and 1973. During the period, implementation of an innovative elevator system halved the number of elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, where they could board local elevators. Also unique was the grouping of columns into the core and perimeter of the building, a structural system called a "tube".

To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and related architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then-unusual approach in its construction: instead of employing a traditional grid-like plan with beams evenly spaced throughout a floor, the WTCs columns were grouped in the building's core and perimeter. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 133 feet (27 by 41 meter) and consisted of steel box columns running from the bedrock to the tops of the tower. The columns tapered to the top, where they transitioned to lightweight H-beams, but the exact dimensions are unknown as the blueprints are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority and are not public domain. Each tower had 240 steel perimeter columns (from 2.5 inches thick at the bottom tapering to .25 inch at the top [6.3 to 0.6 cm]) placed 14 inches (36 cm) around the perimeter. This signature feature of columns grouped in the core and perimeter allowed large tracts of uninterrupted floorspace, a significant marketing feature for the towers.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center
 
Mutton-Head said:
to answer
Click to expand...

It is nonsensical to expect all buildings to fall that way, especially for such a massive building as the WTC. Do a search on pancake collapse and you will find plenty of examples of buildings collapsing straight on their footprint.

The examples you show, we'll we don't know diddly about what failed on them.

ETA: Having looked the names of your links I can note that your collapsed buildings seem to all come from earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause both a toppling collapse as well as pancake collapse. Selective selection from Dr. Jones file does not impress me.
 
Last edited:
It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength
2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.
 
Brick houses "pancake." Smaller apartment buildings "pancake." A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked.
 
1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength
Click to expand...
How should it have collapsed? Please show your work (math).

Mutton-Head said:
It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

...
2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.
Click to expand...
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
(source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
 
Mutton-Head said:
Since somebody asked to tell them that this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf was grade-school investigation.

Well, this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf is grade-school investigation.
Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious. So, let’s get to my suspicions. First, some background. Anybody please correct any errors that you think I have made:

My biggest question has always been how did the core columns break apart? Or, how did they bend upon themselves in a “Z”-like pattern such that the top of the building fell straight downward? That's the "fell in it's footprint," concept. The center of gravity of the building never deviated horizontally. No, I don’t build skyscrapers, but I have been told that the core columns are essential to the buildings vertical strength. In my understanding, they make sure that floors do not pancake immediately after the building is finished. In my understanding, they are made of pieces of steel which are approx 3 stories high, and are welded together. I also believe that they are all cross-braced to each other.

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?
Click to expand...
Mutton-Head, please look carefully through the document you just referred to as "grade-school investigation". For one thing, this document is a supporting document to the investigation and analysis, describing in detail the material collected, and the method of collection and identification. It's not an analysis in and of itself.

What this document does show is many representative examples of the structural members used in the buildings. Attached is one example showing a section of a core column member near where the plane hit WTC1, from pages 43 & 49. As you can see (I encourage you to look at all the images in the document), the steel is twisted and deformed in a way that's consistent with crushing forces and inconsistent with explosive forces.

For another thing, NIST fully accounted for the core, as you can see in their supporting document on the Design and Construction of Structural Systems: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
And its appendices: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/appendixes_april0505.htm
 

Attachments

  • core column.JPG
    core column.JPG
    69.2 KB · Views: 6
  • column diagram.JPG
    column diagram.JPG
    123.9 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
Mutton-Head said:
It is nonsensical to expect a high-rise steel structure to "pancake."
The reasons are:

1. They are designed to have much more vertical strength than horizontal strength
Click to expand...

So you're saying that something that is designed not to fall CANNOT fall ? Can you see the error in that ?

2. Most importantly, it has never happened. I can not go on Google and find an example of something that has never happened. That is silly.
Click to expand...

So precedents do not exist ? How can you have anything happening if the fact that it never happened before precludes it from ever happening ?

Grade-school indeed.
 
Mutton-Head said:
Brick houses "pancake." Smaller apartment buildings "pancake." A high-rise steel structure whose height is several times its width and depth has NEVER pancaked.
Click to expand...


Why does L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport CT come to mind...
 
Mutton-Head said:
to answer
Let me ask this: How did you expect the building to fall? Why?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You expected it to fall like those earthquake victims? Why? The base of the buildings was not compromised (unless you subscribe to the bombs-in-the-basement theory), and there was no lateral ground motion, as there is in the type of earthquake in which buildings typical fall over like that. The weakness on the WTC towers began high up near the top of the buildings. What physical condition was present that would cause them to topple over like that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom