NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by TrueOrFalse
This is not true.

WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper
Page 1.

Also remind him about the wind loads.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Also remind him about the wind loads.

I'm sure someone else would be more helpful on wind loads. Just wanted to debunk baseless "slow moving plain, lost in fog" point.

Originally posted by TrueOrFalse
I'm sure someone else would be more helpful on wind loads. Just wanted to debunk baseless "slow moving plain, lost in fog" point.

I have posted the NIST reports about wind loads but he did not seem to pay much attention.

And of course the wind effects have nothing to do with anything.

The claim of the building being designed to withstand a plane at 600mph where found to be untrue and the designers are unable to find any calculations to prove so. Or perhaps you could show us Robertson's calculations? Because he can't. But of course he never made that claim. An Architect for Port Authority did. Robertson never even considered such a scenario.

What makes your claim even more bogus is that no studies on that type of impact had been conducted EVER, or by anyone. Let alone the WTC designers. Which pretty much proves the guy who made the claim was full of #. But hey, let's see what Robertson had to say about the 600mph claim:

''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did''.

Oh my He himself is saying the claim is full of it.

And of course this once again is completely ignoring that no studies or calculations were done to take into account fires started by the impact.

So let's look at the facts here:

*The buildings were NOT designed to withstand a plane impact of that nature.
*Calculations were done to predeict what kind of plane crash it might withstand
*No one can provide those calculations.
*The calculations were for a slow moving plane low on fuel and lost in the fog and of a smaller size.
*No calculations were done to account for fires started by the impacts.


So to make a claim that implies the WTC was designed to withstand the events of 9/11 and therefore could not have collapsed due to such an event is completely dishonest. And to try and imply that NIST is saying that the building could not have collapsed by using misleading quote mining and intentionally leaving out all of their claim is even further dishonest.

You are literally misquoting them by taking the part where they claim the impact itself did not cause the collapse and leaving out the part where they say the combination of it and the fires caused it. How is that anything but a lie with the intent to mislead people?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
Calculate the kinetic energy of each block and report back

You might want to read what I actually wrote. Could I be any more clear? And where did I say "free fall"?

Try again.

How am I supposed to "calculate the kinetic energy" then?

The same way physicists do. The same way countless people since 9/11 have. Here's some help, for starters:

911myths.com...
911myths.com...

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
You might want to read what I actually wrote. Could I be any more clear? And where did I say "free fall"?

Try again.

You might actually want to read what you wrote then.

Originally posted by seanm
Indeed. Someone with your claimed background who is unable to calculate the kinetic energy of two masses, one 40,000 tons, the other 110,000 tons, falling 6 feet onto a structure never designed to take those loads must be much more than in awe.

Amazing.

If that is not freefall, then please explain the "falling 6 feet onto a structure" part. Thanks for trying.

I guess your forgot what your wrote:

"Hmm... the top block pivoted but also fell freefall? How is that possible? Calculate yourself out of that hole please."

It would help you to think before you write something silly.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
Yawn.... The actual towers collapsed. Get over it.

Brick walls never seem to amaze me. That's almost as bad as using the Bible to prove the Bible.

The towers weren't made of bricks. And they still fell regardless if models were made that didn't collapse.

DO catch up with what's written before replying next time.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by sp00n1
Yea, a supercomputer used to model planetary collisions doesn't have the power to model a collapse... what?!?!

My thoughts exactly. We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out how WTC 7 fell?

Funny how 9/11 Truthers love to engage in logical fallacies. Did you never take a course in logical and critical thinking?

Originally posted by Griff
I just found something pretty interesting.

Dynamic buckling
If the load on the column is applied suddenly and then released, the column can sustain a load much higher than its static (slowly applied) buckling load. This can happen in a long, unsupported column (rod) used as a drop hammer. The duration of compression at the impact end is the time required for a stress wave to travel up the rod to the other (free) end and back down as a relief wave. Maximum buckling occurs near the impact end at a wavelength much shorter than the length of the rod, at a stress many times the buckling stress if the rod were a statically-loaded column. The critical condition for buckling amplitude to remain less than about 25 times the effective rod straightness imperfection at the buckle wavelength is

σL = ρc2h
where σ is the impact stress, L is the length of the rod, c is the elastic wave speed, and h is the smaller lateral dimension of a rectangular rod. Because the buckle wavelength depends only on σ and h, this same formula holds for thin cylindrical shells of thickness h.

Source: Lindberg, H. E., and Florence, A. L., Dynamic Pulse Buckling, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987, pp. 11-56, 297-298.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Well, isn't that interesting? To think that we allowed all that time, effort, manpower, and MONEY to be wasted on the most massive investigations ever when one could have simply looked up the answer on Wikipedia!

reply to post by seanm


No, he's saying that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. No matter what facts you're hit with, they just bounce off.

reply to post by seanm


How exactly is it a logical fallacy to prove that since supercomputers can model planetary collisions, then they can easily model buildings collapsing?!

What you are suggesting is a false dichotomy!

reply to post by sp00n1



I think the problem is your understanding of what facts are. And again, since it is so easy to use a computer to do the calculations, then what's the hold up? Why aren't the geniuses over at ae911.org doing it?

So many scholars and experts as well as the 70% of the population whom the truthers seem to claim all believe in these conspiracies, and no one wants to lift a finger...

reply to post by snoopy


LOL!!! How about NIST's own physical models that you keep ignoring or dismissing with strawmen?!?! They already disprove the spontaneous collapse theory. And that's a fact!

Originally posted by seanm
Funny how 9/11 Truthers love to engage in logical fallacies. Did you never take a course in logical and critical thinking?

This is pretty ridiculous coming from someone who keeps asserting that we don't need physical models of the collapses because they're proof of themselves.

Why aren't you talking the physics of the collapses anymore? Why no more assuming two, already-disconnected, free-falling bodies, or letting on as if the actual floors held the loads of the floors above them? Any other insights you have for us?

[edit on 18-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by sp00n1
Yea, a supercomputer used to model planetary collisions doesn't have the power to model a collapse... what?!?!

My thoughts exactly. We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out how WTC 7 fell?

Funny how 9/11 Truthers love to engage in logical fallacies. Did you never take a course in logical and critical thinking?

hmmm.

planetary collsion modelling is pure newtonian mechanics on a grand scale, with an added factor of complex gravity interactions. ditto that for landing on the moon, except minus the weaknesses of pure theory(if your a "we landed" believer).

a building falling on earth subject to the exact same mechanics, minus the dynamic, convoluted gravity effects is (SOMEHOW!?) much more complex?

maybe you meant logical fall a see, and critter call thinking? that would be typical of an official story defender.

"you don't know what you saw" -(logical fall a see)

"you're dumb" -(critter call thinking)




[edit on 18-10-2007 by billybob]

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by snoopy

 

LOL!!! How about NIST's own physical models that you keep ignoring or dismissing with strawmen?!?! They already disprove the spontaneous collapse theory. And that's a fact!

I would like you to expand on this for me. From what I saw the physical modeling was far from an exact representation of the WTCs. What specifically makes you believe the physical models DISPROVE the collapse theory?

NIST did lab experiments with reproductions of the truss assemblies from the WTC towers, and they also did computer simulations, to try to heat the trusses enough to cause enough sagging or deformation to somehow cause deflections in the outer columns, etc.

In the lab tests, they couldn't produce any kind of failure and the steel stood up to its rating of at least 2 hours in a fire. Don't hear much about that test, not as if the results would be unexpected. I don't understand how people can reconcile this obvious fact, that steel itself is essentially fireproof.

Of the computer simulations, there was one in which NIST stated that they used cranked-up parameters, I forget the exact wording, and even it wouldn't get them where they wanted. They ended up assuming in the final report that the gross power output per square foot from the fire was basically equivalent to so many wood stoves crammed into each office cubicle, something ridiculous when lined up with something familiar for comparison. And they couldn't use their paint technique to find a core column heated beyond ~250 C or so, as far as the physical evidence went.

So, from what data they did gather during their investigation, they shot themselves in the foot a lot in regard to the conditions that would've been required versus the conditions that appear to have been present. And that's pretty much all their report was, since they never really tried to explain the actual collapses themselves.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by snoopy
And of course the wind effects have nothing to do with anything.

So are you saying NIST is wrong or lieing when they say it does ?

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by seanm

 

No, he's saying that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. No matter what facts you're hit with, they just bounce off.

What facts? You know none have been presented.

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by seanm

 

How exactly is it a logical fallacy to prove that since supercomputers can model planetary collisions, then they can easily model buildings collapsing?!

What you are suggesting is a false dichotomy!

For one, www.fallacyfiles.org...