|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2006 : 17:50:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
But the question is basically left unanswered.
Well, if you sift through ergo's snarkiness, I think the answer was "yes," but I wouldn't put money on it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 21:59:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So FEMA's assessment isn't good enough for you, eh? Okay. FEMA are experts in assessing damage. They categorized the damage as a total collapse. What evidence do you have that FEMA got it wrong? How many stories remained completely intact? Because if one of the lower floors managed to hault the collapse, we have a bigger threat to the official story than what I've posted so far--namely, if a lower floor could stop the collapsing mass of dozens upper floors, why didn't the first impacted floor stop a much smaller mass?
Wow! Mab asked a simple question, and instead of answering "yes," ergo starts ranting about how a statement from a government authority ought to be good enough, and introducing, again, his own personal "no floors equals total collapse" definition. ergo seems to be less and less capable of answering questions rationally as time goes by.
Indeed, especially since none of the federal governments are to be trusted, they are all under the suspicion of being involved in the Conspiracy to Cover up The Truth(tm).
But the question is basically left unanswered.
If this is something you really want to discuss, please do.
FEMA says “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).
Dave said he saw a photo somewhere that showed something different.
Now what? If you have something to say about it please say it. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 23:59:10 [Permalink]
|
In the meantime, while we wait for doc m to challenge the total collapse, I'll add a little info related to the fires.
NIST tested several pieces of steel from both the outer walls and the core collumns of the twin towers. The first test examined paint deformation on steel samples chosen specifically from the fire zones. Those tests showed less than 2% of the samples had reached temperatures above 250*C. Another test yielded the result that no steel samples saw temperatures above 600*C.
So how did these steel trusses and cross beams that supposedly failed fail in such low temperatures? But even with these test results, NIST maintained the story that the softening or weakening of vast quantities of steel in both core and exterior columns, floor decks and floor joists led to the collapse of the buildings (NIST Final).
NIST suggests that this weakened steel caused floors to sag, causing inward bowing of the exterior walls of the towers. But as I pointed out earlier, the UL tests showed no failure in the flooring system. I forgot to mention that those tests utilized twice the load that was on WTC floors (NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 10, p 332).
But after 120 minutes in the test with twice the load, the floor system did sag 3 inches (NCSTAR 1-6 Figure 3-11 (p 49). Their computer result of 42 inches of sagging can be found in Chapter 9, Figure 9-6, p 297. But they don't say how they get 42 inches of sagging after 10 - 20 minutes (their estimate of the durration of the fires in the crash zone) from the 3 inches achieved in their test of 120 minutes at twice the floor loading.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but it seems to me that if after 120 minutes with twice the floor load you get 3 inches of sagging, I would predict less sagging to occur after 20 minutes with the typical floor load.
So this 42 inches of sagging supposedly caused the bowing of the walls and the failure of the floor system, which led to the progressive collapse. But did NIST test this theory? Kind of...
NIST tested nine different scenarios with their simulator (as far as I can tell). Only one out of nine simulations resulted in bowing. But the scenario that "worked" was a doozie of a scenario. To get the bowing, NIST had to make a computer mock-up of a nine story high by nine column wide wall section. Then it had to be removed from its web of support by something they called "disconnection." Then they had to strip all the steel of all its fireproofing; expose this section to twice the known fire time, and then apply some unspecified inward pull (NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 4, tables 41-14 and 4-15 and pages 111 to 115).
I'm sure some will argue that NIST was right to force the issue of bowing because there is visual evidence of bowing. Well I've see a lot of photos that claim to show bowing--but I'm not sure anyone can prove it really is bowing. As an avid photographer, I am well aware of the distortion that can show up in a photo due to heat haze and imperfections in one's lens. It seems to me that the physical test data all point to no weakening, no sagging and no bowing.
So please, chew on these tidbits while doc prepares his "it wasn't a total collapse because dave said he saw a photo once..." case.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 03:55:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
NIST tested several pieces of steel from both the outer walls and the core collumns of the twin towers...
...
So how did these steel trusses and cross beams that supposedly failed fail in such low temperatures?
No parts of the "outer walls" or the "core columns" would be properly referred to as "steel trusses" or "cross beams," so this is everyone's first clue that ergo is setting up a completely fallacious argument by using sloppy language. Maybe this is how "regular people" would talk about it, but he's obviously got the report and could be correct if he chose to be. There's no good reason for this disregard to the proper names of the pieces of the towers, just laziness or deception.quote:
So please, chew on these tidbits while doc prepares his "it wasn't a total collapse because dave said he saw a photo once..." case.
And there's the other clue: that's not the reason at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 08:44:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
In the meantime, while we wait for doc m to challenge the total collapse, I'll add a little info related to the fires.
I'm challenging your interpretation of "total collapse", not FEMAs. If FEMA says it's a total collapse, it must obviously include the pic Dave posted, in which there are still several stories of outer perimeter wall standing. That's not the impression you have given when you are discussing "total collapse". If the building is not as completely demolished as you have insinuated. Your own interpretation of the definition of the term seems to be your greatest enemy in this discussion.
In order to have a real discussion, we must both agree to use the same language and the same definitions of the terms we use, otherwise communication is meaningless. Dave has pointed that out for you several times already... What must we do in order for you to realise the importance of a common ground to start the discussion from? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:11:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
In the meantime, while we wait for doc m to challenge the total collapse, I'll add a little info related to the fires.
quote:
I'm challenging your interpretation of "total collapse", not FEMAs. If FEMA says it's a total collapse, it must obviously include the pic Dave posted, in which there are still several stories of outer perimeter wall standing. That's not the impression you have given when you are discussing "total collapse".
Then you have the wrong impression of what I consider a total collapse. What I find confusing is your reference to "several stories of outer perimeter wall." To me, a "story" is an intact level of a building. Once the guts of a story have been demolished, it should only be referred to as a story in the past tense--e.g., "that used to be a 7 story building"; or "they were located on what was the 5th story." The survival of pieces of perimeter wall in a large piece doesn't keep the building from being considered a total collapse by FEMA. And that works for me. Besides, dave has no idea where that section of perimeter wall he saw somewhere in a picture came from on the tower--it could have been a big section from around floor 60, or 30, or 50...
quote:
In order to have a real discussion, we must both agree to use the same language and the same definitions of the terms we use, otherwise communication is meaningless.
I agree completely doc. So please, what is your definition of "total collapse?" We can't come to terms with these terms if you don't let me know what they mean to you.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 22:01:20 [Permalink]
|
Wow. No takers on the info I provided in my post of 10/29/2006 : 23:59:10?
Interesting... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 22:20:14 [Permalink]
|
lair123 said:
quote:
Wow. No takers
People are tired of burning down your strawmen lies.
But you are mistaken in any case. Dave_W responded to your tripe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2006 : 00:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Wow. No takers on the info I provided in my post of 10/29/2006 : 23:59:10?
Interesting...
Still no evidence of explosives?
Uninteresting...
 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 08:35:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wow. No takers on the info I provided in my post of 10/29/2006 : 23:59:10?
Sure I'll take a look at it.
Here is a little more information on the UL flooring fire resistance tests. These test are very informative concerning a 'normal' fire and it's effects the steel supports. I refer to the test as investigating a normal fire because the work was done with the insulation still in place on the steel supports.
From the NIST FAQ section:
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors...
The information you provided (from the NIST web site no less) is interesting, but it is hardly a smoking gun. So lets keep going, I'm sure you have much more damning evidence than this one point.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 10:35:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Wow. No takers on the info I provided in my post of 10/29/2006 : 23:59:10?
quote:
Sure I'll take a look at it.
Here is a little more information on the UL flooring fire resistance tests. These test are very informative concerning a 'normal' fire and it's effects the steel supports. I refer to the test as investigating a normal fire because the work was done with the insulation still in place on the steel supports.
Well, your link claims 5' trusses and 17' trusses were tested--the powerpoint document in my post (the internal report to NIST) claims 17' (half-scale) and 35' (full-scale) trusses were tested.
Your link's wording is also clever. Yours says "“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected,” which is probably true. But UL didn't do these tests using "standard US fire ratings tests." UL conducted the tests to the temperature extremes NIST provided them based on their understanding of the heat of the fires in the WTC. And they also doubled the load on the floor system--and the floor did not collapse. UL's conclusion was that the heat needed to collapse the floors could not be attained in their facility without the risk of damaging their facility.
The most they could coax out of the 35' flooring system (full-scale) was a 3 inch sag after twice the load and exposing the floor to the heat for twice as long as the South Tower stood.
Yet for some reason, NIST used a 42 inch sag in their simulator. They offer no explanation for this.
quote:
From the NIST FAQ section:
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors...
But NIST has no evidence that insulation was dislodged. I thought you guys were into evidence...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 10:48:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
lair123 said:
quote:
Wow. No takers
People are tired of burning down your strawmen lies.
But you are mistaken in any case. Dave_W responded to your tripe.
Sorry, I meant to say "No takers willing to offer intelligent, relevant comments on my last post?" Dave picked, again, at a typo. I typed "So how did these steel trusses and cross beams..." when I should have typed "So how did the steel trusses and cross beams..." He did not take on the meat of the post. Focusing on typos, of course, indicates there was no counter the meat of the post. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 11:37:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Sorry, I meant to say "No takers willing to offer intelligent, relevant comments on my last post?"
How about making an intelligent post with relevant information? (Yes, that would include some evidence) |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 11:44:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Sorry, I meant to say "No takers willing to offer intelligent, relevant comments on my last post?"
How about making an intelligent post with relevant information? (Yes, that would include some evidence)
See above. Have you people ever heard of "building a case?" At this point, I'm proving that the official story is an impossibility. In doing so, you will not be able to fall back on it (read "hide behind it") when we discuss the evidence for the CD Theory.
I know I have yet to provide evidence for the CD Theory. Rather, at this point in time, I am providing evidence against the official story.
Get it? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 12:46:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Have you people ever heard of "building a case?"
Have you heard about "losing the audience"?quote:
At this point, I'm proving that the official story is an impossibility. In doing so, you will not be able to fall back on it (read "hide behind it") when we discuss the evidence for the CD Theory.
What you have to do is to to show that your "story" explains the evidence better than the "official story" so far, without any positive evidence, you are not even close.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What did cause the Towers to collapse?
