ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th March 2018, 01:41 PM   #81
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually, none of these things are regulated any different in response to 9/11.

The amount of fuel stores was restricted long before. There's really no evidence to show it was a factor on 9/11.

Long span trusses are still used and load transfer solutions for design considerations are done all the time.

Mostly now, designs are driven by how to get everyone out and protect the fire safety systems should the **** hit the fan. The use of concrete in the core is in direct response to 9/11.
not the huge transfers as in 7wtc.

not there will be no actual code written about floor systems... but you will not see engineers or owner go for them

FUEL did play a role... certainly for the twin towers and like to some extent for 7wtc. In both cases it was not FUEL alone which burned and caused the destruction... but it was key to fire spread.

GWB shaft walls is probably being changed to gybsum block or concrete block.

My take away is all three towers were "ROOSD" and future designs should design around this mechanism of collapse.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 02:31 PM   #82
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,625
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
not the huge transfers as in 7wtc.
This type of thing is being built everyday. A wide open atrium for a tall building can only be done this way. I know, you don't like the engineering solution used in WTC7 but, there's no reason to believe it can't be done again.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
not there will be no actual code written about floor systems... but you will not see engineers or owner go for them
WTC7 had a floor system that is still used today. The towers design would likely not be used but, not because it was bad.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
FUEL did play a role... certainly for the twin towers and like to some extent for 7wtc. In both cases it was not FUEL alone which burned and caused the destruction... but it was key to fire spread.
I assume you got this backwards. Fuel storage in tall buildings has been regulated for years. Day tanks and large fuel headers for generator sets are still allowed and likely had little to nothing to do with the events of 9/11. There's more than enough fuel (outside of diesel) in a tall building to support large un-fought fires.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
GWB shaft walls is probably being changed to gybsum block or concrete block.
Not probably, it's mandated. Economics support poured concrete.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
My take away is all three towers were "ROOSD" and future designs should design around this mechanism of collapse.
Present design has already addressed the issue. Prevent the series of events that lead to collapse and you have a safer building. This is done by better protecting the systems already in use.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 7th March 2018 at 02:35 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 04:54 PM   #83
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This type of thing is being built everyday. A wide open atrium for a tall building can only be done this way. I know, you don't like the engineering solution used in WTC7 but, there's no reason to believe it can't be done again.



WTC7 had a floor system that is still used today. The towers design would likely not be used but, not because it was bad.



I assume you got this backwards. Fuel storage in tall buildings has been regulated for years. Day tanks and large fuel headers for generator sets are still allowed and likely had little to nothing to do with the events of 9/11. There's more than enough fuel (outside of diesel) in a tall building to support large un-fought fires.



Not probably, it's mandated. Economics support poured concrete.



Present design has already addressed the issue. Prevent the series of events that lead to collapse and you have a safer building. This is done by better protecting the systems already in use.
long spans are one thing.... supporting 40 stories of office floor loads is another. I don't think there is much of that anymore. Please give some examples

OOS flooring may be in use... and some towers may include it. Perhaps larger bays... but again please provide some floor plans

I am not aware of the laws permitting diesel fuel storage inside of office buildings not below it.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 06:42 AM   #84
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 14,007
Since you appear to want to promote and justify this "OOS" and "ROOSD" terminology, can you explain how OOS is, or should be, designed or regulated any differently from ORS*, or OIRS**, or OLRS***, or OFDSBRS****, or OPAWTPTBC&MJS*****?

*Open retail space
**Open indoor recreational space
***Open luxury residential space
****Open fancy-dress string band rehearsal space
*****Open post-apocalyptic wild tribal party, trial-by-combat and motorcycle-jousting space
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 12:11 PM   #85
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Since you appear to want to promote and justify this "OOS" and "ROOSD" terminology, can you explain how OOS is, or should be, designed or regulated any differently from ORS*, or OIRS**, or OLRS***, or OFDSBRS****, or OPAWTPTBC&MJS*****?

*Open retail space
**Open indoor recreational space
***Open luxury residential space
****Open fancy-dress string band rehearsal space
*****Open post-apocalyptic wild tribal party, trial-by-combat and motorcycle-jousting space
hahahhaha

OOS is a open office space in high rise towers.... what the use of the open floor plan is immaterial. You can't be that dense... so I consider your post a (bad) joke.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 12:46 AM   #86
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,413
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
.... so I consider your post a (bad) joke.
Yes. The alternate is less edifying.

It should by now be long established prevailing wisdom that the "tube in tube" design dominated - determined - the mechanisms of the progression stage of the Twin Towers collapses.

The description "ROOSD" is accurate despite the history of many years denial on the basis of who made the acronym prominent.

Childish ridicule has sadly lowered the tone of this forum since I first joined in 2009.

Ignore it is my advice Sander.

Last edited by ozeco41; 9th March 2018 at 12:54 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 03:34 AM   #87
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Yes. The alternate is less edifying.

It should by now be long established prevailing wisdom that the "tube in tube" design dominated - determined - the mechanisms of the progression stage of the Twin Towers collapses.

The description "ROOSD" is accurate despite the history of many years denial on the basis of who made the acronym prominent.

Childish ridicule has sadly lowered the tone of this forum since I first joined in 2009.

Ignore it is my advice Sander.
I am with you on that... I've come to see the 7wtc collapse in a very similar way to the ROOSD... the interior was hollowed out before to exterior moment frame and curtain wall. Evidence are the pre release of the moment frame curtain wall of the 3 roof structures. These 3 structures descending are analogous to the dropping antenna at 1 wtc. And then we have the tell tale sign of part of the curtain wall on top of the debris pile... indicating it folded over onto the already collapsed interior.

The only significant mystery to solve is how the fire and or mechanical damage led to whatever the failure was in the interior triggering the floor collapse. In 7wtc is was low... but we don't have data as how low and where other than the sequence of the roof structures indicating it was on the East side and propagated to the west side.

The NIST explanation seems incorrect because it presents the interior columns in an odd looking distortion and breaking apart as opposed to the ROOSD sort of collapse which largely bypassed the columns because the floor slabs are simply ripped off from/at the column connections.

It would be interesting to compare the structure and connection details of the slabs to the axial system in high risers which did not collapse from extensive fires with those of the WTC ... if there was inadequate fire suppression. Would the DNA for a runaway floor collapse be in the DNA of the structure for out of spec conditions? Who knows?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 11:20 AM   #88
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Since you appear to want to promote and justify this "OOS" and "ROOSD" terminology, can you explain how OOS is, or should be, designed or regulated any differently from ORS*, or OIRS**, or OLRS***, or OFDSBRS****, or OPAWTPTBC&MJS*****?

*Open retail space
**Open indoor recreational space
***Open luxury residential space
****Open fancy-dress string band rehearsal space
*****Open post-apocalyptic wild tribal party, trial-by-combat and motorcycle-jousting space
Lucky there is no silly acronym for "global collapse initiation".

There was 'global collapse initiation', and then 'global collapse ensued'. 9/11 truth, upset NIST said 'global collapse ensued' to describe their CD fantasy.
Those who know the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion had to make up a silly acronym for some odd ball reason. Unable to handle the "block" leading to global collapse, simple physics principle, silly acronym born during the search for Satan who did the inhumane, morally impoverished barbaric intentional act, the collapse of the WTC towers.

GCE was replaced with Runaway Open Office Stupid Description, the Gravity Induced Collapse due to Falling Mass (GICFM), was not good enough for those who think 9/11 was an inside job, but can't find evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 9th March 2018 at 12:51 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 07:53 PM   #89
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Lucky there is no silly acronym for "global collapse initiation".

There was 'global collapse initiation', and then 'global collapse ensued'. 9/11 truth, upset NIST said 'global collapse ensued' to describe their CD fantasy.
Those who know the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion had to make up a silly acronym for some odd ball reason. Unable to handle the "block" leading to global collapse, simple physics principle, silly acronym born during the search for Satan who did the inhumane, morally impoverished barbaric intentional act, the collapse of the WTC towers.

GCE was replaced with Runaway Open Office Stupid Description, the Gravity Induced Collapse due to Falling Mass (GICFM), was not good enough for those who think 9/11 was an inside job, but can't find evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg
If you don't have something to add to the conversation... please don't spam it with irrelevant comments. Thank you!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 09:05 PM   #90
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
If you don't have something to add to the conversation... please don't spam it with irrelevant comments. Thank you!
I added evidence of buckling. 9/11 truthers have that problem, an inability to find the evidence.
"hahahhaha"

I added evidence. Ironically NIST did explain the collapse by presenting the engineering design of the WTC, no need for made up acronyms.


You make up BS about NIST. NIST explains the collapse and it covers the collapse mechanisms, and satisfy this lowly engineer, class of 74/82...
12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.


Many have recovered from believing 9/11 was an inside job, and missed the bowing. There is evidence for buckling, I posted some. You missed it. As for WTC 7 NIST model, it is a model, and does not have to look like the event to study probable collapse causes. If you want a fake model, have Hollywood CGI do it, it will not be physics of real structures, but will look like what you expect. E=mc2 does not look like a nuke, it explains a nuke.

I consider the tower shell bowing proof of buckling. I guessed on 9/11 it was UBL, I was right, but I thought he brought his own planes with explosives, I was wrong.

Global Collapse Ensued Due To Mass In A Gravity Field Overloading Floor Connections (GCEDTMIAGFOFC)

Buckling
https://www.metabunk.org/the-pre-col...of-wtc2.t4760/
Get some help from engineers next time you see anomalies, to avoid joining 9/11 truth like groups in error.

I will look for more evidence.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 10:19 PM   #91
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,185
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post


The NIST explanation seems incorrect because it presents the interior columns in an odd looking distortion and breaking apart as opposed to the ROOSD sort of collapse which largely bypassed the columns because the floor slabs are simply ripped off from/at the column connections.
Did it ever occur to you both might have occurred and maybe one caused the other?

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
If you don't have something to add to the conversation... please don't spam it with irrelevant comments. Thank you!
If you don't like him making fun of your pet anagram, too bad. Either report it to the mods or stop whining.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 07:29 AM   #92
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post

If you don't like him making fun of your pet anagram, too bad. Either report it to the mods or stop whining.
His childish comments in this case reflect on him. I find the acronym perfectly suitable and a good fit to MY understanding of the collapse of the twins from the plane strike zone down.

Global collapse does not have a clue to the mechanisms in play. To me the phrase is way to vague and doesn't shed any light on what happened.

No need to notify the mods... if they find something written inappropriate they will take the necessary measures.

My interest in these forums is to further my understanding of a complex event that requires more than observation alone. Understanding IS informed by observation and the TECHNICAL knowledge to add meaning to the observations. For me this does NOT mean drilling down into the minutia of performance parameters of elements of the structure. The problems for analyzing failures in a technical way is that they require precise and complete data. If you must use a lot of assumptions... your results will be more speculative and with little fidelity.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 08:31 AM   #93
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Lucky there is no silly acronym for "global collapse initiation".

There was 'global collapse initiation', and then 'global collapse ensued'. 9/11 truth, upset NIST said 'global collapse ensued' to describe their CD fantasy.
Those who know the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion had to make up a silly acronym for some odd ball reason. Unable to handle the "block" leading to global collapse, simple physics principle, silly acronym born during the search for Satan who did the inhumane, morally impoverished barbaric intentional act, the collapse of the WTC towers.

GCE was replaced with Runaway Open Office Stupid Description, the Gravity Induced Collapse due to Falling Mass (GICFM), was not good enough for those who think 9/11 was an inside job, but can't find evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg
Actually Roosd is only a description of the energy flow paths after collapse initiation and it is a good descriptive term for those energy flows though the structure as union becomes disunion.
It is very similar to the model of floor destruction used by Both Banzant and Greening. Globel Collapse Initiation is a whole different topic.
Roosd was described several times by your yourself here in conversation where it was termed the funnel effect of the outer perimeter columns, "A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet. " Funnel effect or Roosd describe the same energy path ways that effected the buildings disunification.
The miss understand kings are simple for us to see Beechnut for other simple descriptive terms are helpful and useful.
It is actually a very simple set of physics equations, strength of individualized connections VS, energy/Time.
Time is important because as the time interval that the energy of collapse is applied to the connections the less energy required to compromise the composite structure.
I had worked once to put that on a graph but gave up, because who's going to listen to me anyway?
The dynamic of structural failures doomed all three buildings.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 10:01 AM   #94
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,213
ROOSD is a silly acronym. I accept and use it in the limited context ISF, to which it as imported from the911forum, simply to give kudos to M_T.

Myriad's ironic post pokes fun at the fact that limiting the mechanism to "open office spaces" ("OOS") is, at best, unnecessary, at worst confusing.
There is nothing special structurally about these spaces being occupied by "offices" rather than retail, residential, logistical, mechanical, productive of no occupancy, so let's drop one "O".

It makes no difference whether or not the "space" is "open", or partitioned, or whatever. What matters is the structural framing, not how you fill the space.

The acronym only losely makes reference to long spans (by invoking the idea that you can get spacious, open office areas only with long spans), but suggested they are - and again, that's totally unnecessary to the concept. Nowhere do M_T or JSO or anyone propose a limit, beyond which a floor qualifies as having "long spans", and below which we must say "short spans", and the reason they have not, and cannot, is that it makes no difference: Ronan Point has shown 50 years ago that short-span, "closed" residential "spaces" (floors, actually) can be subject to the exact same failure progression mechanism.

The "R" stands for "runaway" - a needless coinage. The established term among engineers is "progressive".

And finally, the "D", which stands for "destruction", is too general a term. Again, an established term exists among engineers to describe such events, and it is "collapse".

A truly fitting, descriptive term would be "progressive floor collapse", or "PFC". This would be in many ways better than the needlessly bombastic "ROOSD".
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 10th March 2018 at 10:03 AM.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 10:54 AM   #95
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Actually ...
all good ... what is SD? Standard Deviation, Stored Dumbness (me), Stator Distractor...

The childish acronym, born in ignorance of physics/engineering, leaves out much, failing to provide evidence of buckled columns. Global collapse ensued after massive buckling. Global collapse is the mass of the upper floors failing causing failure of the floor connections to core and shell. After massive buckling leading to failure due to gravity, Upper Mass Chaotically Overloads Core Shell Floor Connections In A Earth's Gravity Field. (UMCOCSFCIAGF)

https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstre...629?sequence=1
This could help understand why the shell buckled. Or not.

[quote=JSanderO]
Originally Posted by JSanderO
There was no bowing before collapse
Thus the collapse was over 5 minutes long. lol - there was bowing, aka buckling before collapse.

Originally Posted by JSanderO
My take away is all three towers were "ROOSD"
Oh, have numbers to go with this childish opinion? No. And you need to present the actual name of roosd, or it becomes Rumor Opinion Of Silly Descriptors. EXample: The United States Air Force (USAF) taught me flying and sent me to earn my masters in engineering. The USAF is looking for a new Tanker. Use the childish acronym properly, so we

The childish acronym was born because someone failed to read and comprehend NIST's work, and believed there was no explanation of the collapse. Since they lacked the knowledge of the structure, "Global Collapse Ensued" failed to make a "connection". The collapse mechanism is the WTC structure, which was explained in NIST work, which someone failed to read.

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/ge...?pub_id=101430
Some WTC steel, already presented.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
My hunch is that 7wyc would have done perfectly fine with a fire under "normal" conditions... ....
maybe, it depends on the fire - on a side not - lol, and this is related to buckling. What are normal conditions; what was the fate of One Meridian Plaza? Totaled by fire, taken apart in place. Buckling of floors by 3 feet, etc. (Ask Questions - Answer Them - AQAT vs JAQ) - Are any fires "normal"? The microwave that is stuck on with a potato starts the tissue box on fire when everyone is out for lunch, is "normal"... or what.

There was some buckling during NIST tests. The 9/11 truth misrepresented floor assembly testing by NIST on WTC towers floors, looked like buckling, and if fires equal to the test happened in the WTC towers, floors would have to be replaced, unless you like warped/buckled floors and assemblies. Yes current and former 9/11 truth believers of woo, the floor assemblies of the WTC towers tested with insulation would survive fires for two hours, but the floors and WTC towers were not in as built condition after massive aircraft impacts 7 and 11 times more KE than design to stop a plane at the shell.
keep finding 9/11 truth nuts saying NIST tested the floors and they did not fail in fire, so NIST ignored the test,
but included them in there presentation of work... WHAT? the idiots fail to realize the insulation was on the test, not on the real world impact areas due to the shock of the impacts equal in energy to 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT in KE...


Buckling, prior to collapse. Yes, the floor connections are substantial because the floor connects the Core to the Shell, and the Shell is the lateral support for the WTC.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...McAllister.pdf


And 12 buck* in NCSTAR 1-6B. Fire Resistance Tests of Floor Truss Systems.
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/ge...?pub_id=101042
This is experimental evidence for buckling which would take place and did take place in the WTC on 9/11. Buckling, Blücher.

evidence - ohme 0hmy - gtg
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 10th March 2018 at 10:57 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 09:12 AM   #96
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
.......
if you say so.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 07:31 PM   #97
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,185
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
if you say so.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2018, 07:45 PM   #98
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 14,007
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
hahahhaha

OOS is a open office space in high rise towers....

Is the "in high rise towers" part important? If so, shouldn't that be part of the descriptive term?

Quote:
what the use of the open floor plan is immaterial.

You confirm that the "office" part, which refers to one possible use of the floor plan, is irrelevant, as my post pointed out. Shouldn't that be omitted from the descriptive term?

Quote:
You can't be that dense... so I consider your post a (bad) joke.

Bad joke for bad terminology. Seems fitting enough.

It's like calling gravity the "Terra-Lunar Tuesday Trapping Effect" because it (undeniably!) keeps the moon from flying away from the earth on Tuesdays. And then despite acknowledging that that name is in some ways unnecessarily specific (such as, the phenomenon doesn't occur only on Tuesdays) while also leaving important characteristics out (such as that it acts as an attractive force based on mass and distance), still insisting on using "TLTTE" instead of "gravity" whenever the position of the moon on the third day of the calendar week are under discussion.

Now, had Newton named gravity TLTTE because he originally investigated its effects and formulated its nature for that specific case, and it was later discovered that it applied much more generally, perhaps some version of "TLTTE" would still be used for historical reasons. (Much like we still call carbon chemistry "organic" chemistry even though it no longer applies exclusively to chemicals found in living tissues.) But the case of ROOSD is more like someone coining TTLTE today, when the general laws and behavior of gravitation have already been known for a long time. As Oystein just pointed out, the phenomenon is more accurately described by existing engineering terminology.

"Progressive Collapse." What does ROOSD add or clarify?

Runaway — means the same as "progressive"
Open — the relevance is questionable; given the same initiating conditions, would the towers have collapsed differently had the floor space been partitioned?
Office — irrelevant, as seems to be agreed by everyone
Space — vague; would be better if that S stood for structure as that is what gets destroyed/collapses (note that all the space is still there afterward, though it's no longer rentable)
Destruction — means the same as "collapse" in any context where the phrase would be applicable at all

If there were any need, a more specific description of the specific mechanisms of progressive collapse applicable to the 9/11 tower collapses could be coined. You'd do that by adding terms that actually apply to those cases, such as specifying a high-rise structure, or indicating the key role of floor failure or floor-to-column connection severing in the process. But "ROOSD" doesn't accomplish any of that. It's just annoyingly stupid.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 02:24 AM   #99
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 469
@Myriad - I haven't really been following this discussion but I just wanted to say that was a really good, clear post. The 'TLTTE' device was particularly illuminating as to the problems you have with 'ROOSD' as a term. I think your objections are valid - the term includes too many descriptive elements that are not relevant to what is supposed to be being described.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 03:37 AM   #100
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
ROOSD is is not an umbrella term for global collapse.... it was a short hand for what happened at the twin towers which was the matter being discussed. If you don't like it... don't use it.... use total collapse... or even complete collapse. ROOSD describes a collapse of floor slabs preceding the demise of the columns and exterior frame. This form / sequence of collapse was what occurred... and yes the entire building DID collapse in the end Global does not even suggest a suggest a sequence or a form of the collapse as ROOSD does.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 03:43 AM   #101
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,213
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
ROOSD is is not an umbrella term for global collapse.... it was a short hand for what happened at the twin towers which was the matter being discussed. If you don't like it... don't use it.... use total collapse... or even complete collapse. ROOSD describes a collapse of floor slabs preceding the demise of the columns and exterior frame. This form / sequence of collapse was what occurred... and yes the entire building DID collapse in the end Global does not even suggest a suggest a sequence or a form of the collapse as ROOSD does.
A truly fitting, descriptive term would be "progressive floor collapse", or "PFC". This would be in many ways better than the needlessly bombastic "ROOSD".

Agreed?

ETA:
Frankly, Sander, you should at this time admit that the "R" and "D" in the acronym are better exchanged for the proper engineering terms.
You should at this time accept that both "O" are not needed, and that the "S" is vague at best, wrong at worst.

In other words, the entire acronym "ROOSD", every single letter, is ******** **** by an amateur.

It has gained a bit of recognition value among the very limited set of mostly interested amateurs here at ISF and there at the former 9/11 forum, but beyond that is devoid of meaning and utility.

It is best dropped and forgotten.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 13th March 2018 at 03:48 AM.
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 06:26 AM   #102
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,331
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
ROOSD is is not an umbrella term for global collapse....
Seems you have a problem distinguishing "global collapse" from "progressive collapse".

ROOSD is an umbrella term for progressive floor collapse. Your confusion has even led you to conflate the collapse mechanism in the towers with the one in WTC7.

In WTC7, there is no evidence that the floor system between core and perimeter went first, as happened in the towers. Instead, every simulation points at the core suffering a progressive horizontal collapse, while the exterior beams remained connected, which is (I believe) why we see an acceleration greater than g.

If I had to put a label defining the collapse mechanism of the towers specifically, I'd rather choose "Progressive Floor ASSEMBLY Collapse", because the floor assemblies are what actually suffered the progressive collapse, as opposed to the more conventional flooring of the core.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 07:39 AM   #103
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Seems you have a problem distinguishing "global collapse" from "progressive collapse".

ROOSD is an umbrella term for progressive floor collapse. Your confusion has even led you to conflate the collapse mechanism in the towers with the one in WTC7.

In WTC7, there is no evidence that the floor system between core and perimeter went first, as happened in the towers. Instead, every simulation points at the core suffering a progressive horizontal collapse, while the exterior beams remained connected, which is (I believe) why we see an acceleration greater than g.

If I had to put a label defining the collapse mechanism of the towers specifically, I'd rather choose "Progressive Floor ASSEMBLY Collapse", because the floor assemblies are what actually suffered the progressive collapse, as opposed to the more conventional flooring of the core.
Simulations are not evidence.

The evidence is what we OBSERVE.

Let's list the observations/

7wtc

EPH drops
screen wall drops
WPH drops
Moment frame kinks on north face and drops rotating counter clockwise
Portion of east curtain wall is on top of debris pile.
dust/debris cloud radiates in all directions from the base

1wtc

plane strikes - multiple columns destroyed on north face and core and 1 on south face with local floor collapse
IB on south face east side
antenna tips and plunges into the roof, breaks and top falls over the side
top collapses with blast of fire and smoke ejected around entire perimeter
top tips slighting and seems to translate a bit laterally as it drops
facade panels from the top break away and fall vertically
floors collapse forcing ejections thru glass
facade panels peel and land in large sections up to 350' from the perimeter in a fairly symmetrical pattern.
multiple core columns remain, several connected by bracing
remaining standing columns tip over or euler buckle and drop down
dust/debris cloud radiates in all directions from the base

2wtc

plane strikes - multiple columns destroyed on south face and core and 1 on NE corner with local floor collapse
IB on north face east side
glowing orange color liquid pours from NE corner
top 32 stories tip to the south and east and drop into the core
top 32 stories and bottom mutually destroy until the top 32 floors are disintegrated.
facade panels from the top break away and fall vertically to the South and East
floors collapse forcing ejections thru glass
facade panels peel and land in large sections up to 300' from the perimeter in a fairly symmetrical pattern.
multiple core columns remain, several connected by bracing
remaining standing columns tip over and drop down
dust/debris cloud radiates in all directions from the base

please feel free to revise the above
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 10:51 AM   #104
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,331
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Simulations are not evidence.

The evidence is what we OBSERVE.
I know. And the interior was not observable, therefore we have no direct evidence of how it collapsed. The best we can do is run a physics simulation software to try and see what can happen under reasonable assumptions. And the simulations agree, which is a hint that they may be right, at least on that point. We have, however, evidence of the absence of something that did not happen, keep reading:


Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Let's list the observations/

7wtc

EPH drops
screen wall drops
WPH drops
Moment frame kinks on north face and drops rotating counter clockwise
Portion of east curtain wall is on top of debris pile.
dust/debris cloud radiates in all directions from the base
Special emphasis on the ABSENCE of "ejections through glass", which is a telltale of the progressive floor assembly collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
1wtc

[...]
floors collapse forcing ejections thru glass
[...]

2wtc

[...]
floors collapse forcing ejections thru glass
[...]
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 13th March 2018 at 10:52 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 11:05 AM   #105
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
7wtc's floor collapse was analogous to the collapse of the of the top of 1wtc... where the core collapsed and pulled the OOS floors with it... and there was no ejections through the glass
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:17 PM   #106
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
7wtc's floor collapse was analogous to the collapse of the of the top of 1wtc... where the core collapsed and pulled the OOS floors with it... and there was no ejections through the glass
Source?

Opinion, no evidence for the core doing what floor trusses could do. The trusses had great capacity to pull in the shell columns, and that is a fact. Buckled columns, seen, observed, and matched reason and facts.

Engineering studies are evidence. Opinions based on what you see, are still opinions. This is could be why people fall for nonsense from 9/11 truth, whatever this is that you do - might be giving weight to opinions over reason.

lol, yes, this is on video... and it was caused by 19 terrorists who are solely responsible for all damage and death on 9/11.
glowing orange color liquid pours from NE corner which turns silvery because it is Al as it cools
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:29 PM   #107
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Source?

Opinion, no evidence for the core doing what floor trusses could do. The trusses had great capacity to pull in the shell columns, and that is a fact. Buckled columns, seen, observed, and matched reason and facts.

Engineering studies are evidence. Opinions based on what you see, are still opinions. This is could be why people fall for nonsense from 9/11 truth, whatever this is that you do - might be giving weight to opinions over reason.

lol, yes, this is on video... and it was caused by 19 terrorists who are solely responsible for all damage and death on 9/11.
glowing orange color liquid pours from NE corner which turns silvery because it is Al as it cools
This IS my opinion as NIST sagging columns is THEIR opinion. Note that where there IS visual evidence of exterior pull in or inward bowing... not opposite core...

The leads me to GUESS that the collapse of the two tops was core column failure driven.... Antenna drop is further evidence in 1 WTC.

I'll stick with my "theory" because it is a better fit to the visual record.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 911 TRUTH...

This is simply a different explanation for plane damage and fire caused failures.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 13th March 2018 at 12:30 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:32 PM   #108
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,331
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
7wtc's floor collapse was analogous to the collapse of the of the top of 1wtc... where the core collapsed and pulled the OOS floors with it... and there was no ejections through the glass
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "ROOSD" a reference to the progressive floor assembly collapse that happened during collapse progression?

Some days ago you were saying that your concern is with how the collapse progression results in total collapse. Now you're speaking about how you think their initiation was similar. Can you please define your topic of discussion more clearly? It seems to me you're jumping from topic to topic.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:48 PM   #109
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
This IS my opinion as NIST sagging columns is THEIR opinion. Note that where there IS visual evidence of exterior pull in or inward bowing... not opposite core...

The leads me to GUESS that the collapse of the two tops was core column failure driven.... Antenna drop is further evidence in 1 WTC.

I'll stick with my "theory" because it is a better fit to the visual record.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 911 TRUTH...

This is simply a different explanation for plane damage and fire caused failures.
outstanding, an opinion based on watching, NIST, an opinion based on engineering science. Cool.

NIST is science on the trusses pulling in the columns, and others agree.

https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstre...629?sequence=1

Photos, observation of buckled shell, and it matches science, and studies by NIST and others. Engineering which the truth movement’s many investigators think they have exposed hundreds if not thousands of lies and inconsistencies in the official account. A fantasy which 9/11 truth has, they they exposed hundreds if not thousands? lol, which is it, did the list of exposed lies get lost before a final count was made?

Opinion of lies, hundred if not thousands? 9/11 truth is based on opinions.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...McAllister.pdf

Physical evidence of buckling, do you know how much tensile strength the truss connections have? lots, need a number, it is in the thousands if not ten thousand pages of NIST. kips, facts
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 02:03 PM   #110
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
outstanding, an opinion based on watching, NIST, an opinion based on engineering science. Cool.

NIST is science on the trusses pulling in the columns, and others agree.

https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstre...629?sequence=1

Photos, observation of buckled shell, and it matches science, and studies by NIST and others. Engineering which the truth movement’s many investigators think they have exposed hundreds if not thousands of lies and inconsistencies in the official account. A fantasy which 9/11 truth has, they they exposed hundreds if not thousands? lol, which is it, did the list of exposed lies get lost before a final count was made?

Opinion of lies, hundred if not thousands? 9/11 truth is based on opinions.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...McAllister.pdf

Physical evidence of buckling, do you know how much tensile strength the truss connections have? lots, need a number, it is in the thousands if not ten thousand pages of NIST. kips, facts
The collapse of the top sections was not caused by sagging floor trusses. I don't care how many people claim this is possible... it didn't happen and the visual evidence shows it didn't.

UK paper is theoretical and doesn't have the correct floor plan even... Another fantasy model absent real world data which does not match the observations.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 13th March 2018 at 02:06 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 08:47 PM   #111
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The collapse of the top sections was not caused by sagging floor trusses. I don't care how many people claim this is possible... it didn't happen and the visual evidence shows it didn't.

UK paper is theoretical and doesn't have the correct floor plan even... Another fantasy model absent real world data which does not match the observations.
Oh, your opinion is better than engineering studies by more than one source. Visual evidence proves you are wrong, it can happen... oops

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...McAllister.pdf
oops, buckling, and we don't see floors pulled down from the core. Now what.

Oh, engineering is theoretical? Better not get in your car, it is theoretically designed... lol, the plans and structure by Leslie Robertson for the WTC is theoretical? lol, we have Towers, able to withstand a hurricane, standing until idiots mislead by UBL crash at speed much greater than the shell can stop; engineering is theoretical? This is exactly why 9/11 truth followers are unable to grasp reality, they weigh their opinions and ignore reality, engineering, science, math, and physics.


Better stay out of buildings, they are built with what you call theoreitcal stuff... lol
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstre...629?sequence=1

Is the anti-science/engineering what fooled some, even you about 9/11 claims?

Yes, you have an opinion. Oops, the visual evidence shows what? lol, how is "space destruction" possible? Space can't be destroyed. Is that new physics?

Again, I show buckling because the trusses pulled in the shell columns. lol, it is funny, because ... Trusses, Blücher.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 02:15 AM   #112
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Oh, your opinion is better than engineering studies by more than one source. r.
I am not disparaging engineering....

The engineering was forensic and to do proper forensic engineering you need a vastly more complete data set.

This issue I have is not that the engineering is incorrect... but that it was based in vastly incomplete data and so it is theoretical... a result based on the input assumptions.

No I don't agree with the observations and what might explain them. Whatever my "theory/speculation/explanation" is.... it would be driven by engineering and physics principles as well.

I don't think it makes sense to use assumptions and build a model in the case of the world trade center collapse. I don't think scaled models are accurate because gravity can't be scale nor time.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 08:28 AM   #113
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,096
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I am not disparaging engineering....

The engineering was forensic and to do proper forensic engineering you need a vastly more complete data set.

This issue I have is not that the engineering is incorrect... but that it was based in vastly incomplete data and so it is theoretical... a result based on the input assumptions.

No I don't agree with the observations and what might explain them. Whatever my "theory/speculation/explanation" is.... it would be driven by engineering and physics principles as well.

I don't think it makes sense to use assumptions and build a model in the case of the world trade center collapse. I don't think scaled models are accurate because gravity can't be scale nor time.
We have decades of testing on materials, on fasteners, on joints, on fires.
We have decades of correlation between the testing and the physics models of the tested.
We have 10's of thousands of engineers who can add 2 and 2 and get 4.
But you know better than all this. Well done.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 10:09 AM   #114
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
We have decades of testing on materials, on fasteners, on joints, on fires.
We have decades of correlation between the testing and the physics models of the tested.
We have 10's of thousands of engineers who can add 2 and 2 and get 4.
But you know better than all this. Well done.
This is an ignorant remark. I remind you of the disaster of the Shuttle Challenger... where there was team of experts who were tasked to explain the disaster... and it was a Richard Feynmen who was not an engineer but a theoretical physicist who came up with the explanation.

There are many paths to catastrophics failure of complex systems/

https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/02/10/...-systems-fail/
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 10:25 AM   #115
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
...

There are many paths to catastrophics failure of complex systems/

...
And yet you completely rule out the most likely one in this case, despite it being actually consistent with the photographic evidence. How many posts can you keep making without addressing the clear bending of the exterior columns over a long period of time?

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...McAllister.pdf

You want to throw models out in favor of your own intuition and observations, but you won't even first square those observations with reality. It seems to me like you are too invested in your own pet theory.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 10:46 AM   #116
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
And yet you completely rule out the most likely one in this case, despite it being actually consistent with the photographic evidence. How many posts can you keep making without addressing the clear bending of the exterior columns over a long period of time?

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...McAllister.pdf

You want to throw models out in favor of your own intuition and observations, but you won't even first square those observations with reality. It seems to me like you are too invested in your own pet theory.
The clear bending of several facade panel/columns was not the cause of the collapse of the top sections.

I don't want to throw anything out. I am simply presenting my thinking that:

the collapse of the twins were core led from....ie core failure... not sagging trusses

the core failures were the results of loss of axial capacity from destroy columns then laterally displaced column connections leading to loss of bearing and axial capacity.

The collapse of the twins had little to nothing to do with facade column failure caused by sagging trusses.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 11:13 AM   #117
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I am not disparaging engineering....
You do with opinions.
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The engineering was forensic and to do proper forensic engineering you need a vastly more complete data set.
Baseless opinion, nonsense. What is the vastly more complete data set. Evidence?
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
This issue I have is not that the engineering is incorrect... but that it was based in vastly incomplete data and so it is theoretical... a result based on the input assumptions.
Same opinion, no data on the incomplete data. Evidence?
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
No I don't agree with the observations and what might explain them. Whatever my "theory/speculation/explanation" is.... it would be driven by engineering and physics principles as well.
Opinion.
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I don't think it makes sense to use assumptions and build a model in the case of the world trade center collapse. I don't think scaled models are accurate because gravity can't be scale nor time.
What assumptions? You mean engineering stuff? Full scale floor models were used with complete data to see if the floors were up to specification, aka the WTC was built as claimed. 9/11 truth uses the floor fire test as evidence the WTC is invisible in fire, ignoring the 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT KE impacts destroyed the fire proofing with the shock of the planes impacts which looked like big bombs going off, but much more efficient than bombs, KE weapons, not blasts from bombs.

What data was left out of the floor assembly test?
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/ge...?pub_id=101042
Where is the vastly complete data set? Is it a secret?

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The clear bending of several facade panel/columns was not the cause of the collapse of the top sections.
Just to clarify, so be your opinion.
Based on complete data?
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I don't want to throw anything out. I am simply presenting my thinking that:
Just to clarify, your opinion.
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
the collapse of the twins were core led from....ie core failure... not sagging trusses
Just to clarify, your opinion. Not engineering, speculation.
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
the core failures were the results of loss of axial capacity from destroy columns then laterally displaced column connections leading to loss of bearing and axial capacity.
Just to clarify, your opinion.
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The collapse of the twins had little to nothing to do with facade column failure caused by sagging trusses.
Just to clarify, your opinion. More speculation. Maybe opinions need to be balanced with respect to the goal of each engineering model/section, etc.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 14th March 2018 at 12:19 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 01:24 PM   #118
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You do with opinions.

Baseless opinion, nonsense. What is the vastly more complete data set. Evidence?
Same opinion, no data on the incomplete data. Evidence?
....

Just to clarify, so be your opinion.
...
Just to clarify, your opinion.
Just to clarify, your opinion. Not engineering, speculation.
Just to clarify, your opinion.
Just to clarify, your opinion. More speculation. Maybe opinions need to be balanced with respect to the goal of each engineering model/section, etc.
Correct.... Like most people who post here including you... I am not an arbiter of fact... I don't have any physical evidence... my OPINIONS are informed by what I read, see and my education... and critical thinking.

My opinion is that the NIST explanation has got the proximate cause correct but the mechanics of the collapse incorrect.

YES my opinion... like YOURS it's just one person's opinion.

Than you for sharing your opinion.

Have a nice day!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 14th March 2018 at 02:22 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 02:47 PM   #119
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,021
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Correct.... Like most people who post here including you... I am not an arbiter of fact... I don't have any physical evidence... my OPINIONS are informed by what I read, see and my education... and critical thinking.

My opinion is that the NIST explanation has got the proximate cause correct but the mechanics of the collapse incorrect.

YES my opinion... like YOURS it's just one person's opinion.

Than you for sharing your opinion.

Have a nice day!
Alright, but based on the opinions you shared I don't believe they are informed and formed with critical thinking, and suffer from the same way you formed opinions in the past, for example:
Quote:
The first hint that something was wrong was how soon they identified the hijackers and how they managed to take over these planes. WOW, and they weren’t able to prevent these slackers from getting on the planes or intercept them? We have spent several trillion dollars on defence and spying and surveillance, and four commercial flights were just floating around the skies all morning… something was really fishy.
Fishy, that the FBI was able to apply the efforts of thousands of agents in hours to check the background of the passengers and conclude in hours only 19 passengers had a reason to murder thousands of American on 9/11 - this is not critical thinking, it is something else. Really, you think the USAF flys around waiting for planes to level off go off course and crash? Anyway, that is not critical thinking or informed, it is uniformed speculation.
Like this.
Quote:
not that the engineering is incorrect... but that it was based in vastly incomplete data and so it is theoretical
Again, this is not critical thinking, and looks like an uniformed opinion based on the the same kind of "something else". It is missing a lot of what it takes to be informed using critical thinking.

Oh, no, my post was not an opinion that your post was an opinion, it was a fact. You confirmed. It is not an opinion the trusses pulled in the shell columns, it is fact verified by study and photos before collapse.
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstre...629?sequence=1
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...McAllister.pdf

Does this mean there will be no list of the vastly more complete data set NIST and others have missed?
Can you list what makes up the vastly more complete data set. I was looking forward to the vastly more complete data set list.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 14th March 2018 at 02:50 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 03:05 PM   #120
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,844
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Alright, ......the vastly more complete data set list.
There were no thermocouples measuring the heat and the fire spread...

All the input related to fire/heat were educated guesses. This is NOT DATA.

The data would be the time motion studies of what was seen on the outside of the buildings... plus analysis of the debris pile and the steel and materials recovered.

I believe there were claims they couldn't ID beams because they were not tagged. That sounds pretty lame to me.

Do you know which building and floors and position in the column grid the so called horse shoe column was? Did NIST explain how it was bent?

Did they explain why the spire remained and why it toppled?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.