User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > General Discussion > Politics and Religion > Watch the video... then call me a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
Page:
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Homage
You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to itroduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.

And they never said simple.


So... you disagreed with the statement I made

Originally posted by me

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation would have been appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations


by saying
Originally posted by Homage

hey homie there's this thing called wind/air pressure and it happens to be a big deal for taller structures.

belittling it to a standard statics problem is ignorance as gnosis would put it


But then you found out it was NIST who aid it and you said

Originally posted by Homage
You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to itroduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.

And they never said simple.


If you can't see that you are clearly trying to rationalize your assertions to all match what you already believe... there may be no help for you.

You Disagree when you think it's me. You find out it's NIST, and of course, you change your opinion.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by baumusc
You are just getting angry now and it is pretty humorous. Posting every three minutes about how a source that you couldn't have possibly read is awful while posting other comments in between. I also love the fact that this is about 'winning' to you, like you are converting people to the dark side or something.


Once I run across a portion of your articles that is worthless, why should I read further? I never claimed there was a third plane, so why read it? I never talked about pnac. Why bring that into a discussion about science? Most of your articles are less than a page long, if they come from the blog you cited. The 12 page papers have no relevance to any part of this discussion, unless you want to talk about how easy or hard it is to fly a plane. I can't attest to anything in regard to that.
 
baumusc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Once I run across a portion of your articles that is worthless, why should I read further? I never claimed there was a third plane, so why read it? I never talked about pnac. Why bring that into a discussion about science? Most of your articles are less than a page long, if they come from the blog you cited. The 12 page papers have no relevance to any part of this discussion, unless you want to talk about how easy or hard it is to fly a plane. I can't attest to anything in regard to that.


I don't think you read any of them to be honest.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by baumusc
I don't think you read any of them to be honest.


That's how I was able to quote them. By not reading.

TBQH, if you read them, you would never have posted them
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by baumusc
I don't think you read any of them to be honest.


I will post one of them in its entirety. It only takes a few minutes to read all of it!
Originally posted by shittybaumsource

A NATION CHALLENGED: GROUND ZERO; Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall Of 3rd Tower
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON (NYT) 1715 words

Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

The tower was set on fire by debris from the twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in the late afternoon under previously unexplained circumstances. The analysis of its collapse is one of the first detailed findings by a team of engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers to understand the fate of all the buildings around the site.

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.

A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995. Federal guidelines for public buildings, created in 1996, warned of the dangers of such trusses in terrorist attacks.

''It's certainly right in the vicinity where the columns go into this transfer system,'' said a person knowledgeable about the investigators' draft report on the World Trade Center. ''The rest of the building is built on top of the bridge.''

While 7 World Trade Center, which stood across Vesey Street just to the north of the twin towers, was not formally a federal building, it did house crucial government offices that included the city's nerve center for emergency response.

The investigators said that their conclusions, combined with other findings about the failure and collapse of 5 World Trade Center, could prompt serious changes in the codes used in building construction.

The findings are in a draft report that has already been circulated among government agencies, and are based on videos made on Sept. 11, witnesses' reports, interviews with firefighters, evidence from the debris pile and structural analysis. Team members, who described many of the findings, cautioned that the conclusions on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center could still be modified as reviews proceed.

But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse.

He said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. ''It ended up with tenants who had diesels,'' Mr. Cantor said. ''I know none of that was planned at the beginning.''

According to floor plans submitted to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which 7 World Trade sat, the building complied with city fire codes, said Frank Lombardi, the authority's chief engineer. Those codes permit no more than one fuel tank with a capacity of 275 gallons or less on above-ground floors, he said.

Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.

''There were a host of people who looked at this,'' said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. ''We relied on their judgment.''

Fire officials did at one point question the storage of large amounts of fuel well above the ground level, saying that one large tank for the mayor's command center, if ever compromised, might fuel a fire that would threaten the building.

The Sept. 11 draft report also has photographs and a description of debris collected from a previously undisclosed, multistory collapse within 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned on Sept. 11 but largely remained standing. The team has found that one specific type of bolted connection, called a column tree connection, that joined floor-support beams, failed in the heat of the fires, causing the four-story collapse in the part of 5 World Trade at the corner of Vesey and Church Streets.

Although no one died as a result of the collapses in 5 and 7 World Trade Centers, since both stood long enough to be evacuated, the team's findings are likely to lead to recommended changes in the way public and government buildings are constructed, much the way similar studies did after the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

The team is still deliberating on how tightly it can pin down the precise train of events that led to the collapse of the twin towers themselves. But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire.

High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn.

In major high-rise fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991 and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. But the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the blazes.

''What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?'' said one member of the investigating team.

According to the Port Authority floor plans, 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

The huge steel transfer trusses ran mostly through the fifth, sixth and seventh floors where the fires burned. The purpose of the trusses, which included zigzagging and horizontal members and were concentrated around the building's core, was to allow 7 World Trade to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations that already existed on that spot when the building went up in the late 1980's. Together the stations held 10 transformers, each about 35 feet high and 40 feet wide.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

''We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility,'' said Mr. Cantor, the structural engineer. ''This building had an awful lot of transfers.''

Transfer trusses are a well-tested technique and are used in countless high-rise buildings, as well as in bridges around the world. Engineers say that transfer trusses, for most buildings, present no extraordinary hazard. But if there is an explosion, earthquake or long-burning fire, they can present a problem.

In Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building's third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths. After this attack, federal guidelines for buildings that would hold government agencies were changed, recommending that buildings be designed so that single-point failures did not cause a catastrophic collapse.

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building's core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks.

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. ''The pieces have come together,'' he said. ''Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine.''
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
If you can't see that you are clearly trying to rationalize your assertions to all match what you already believe... there may be no help for you.

You Disagree when you think it's me. You find out it's NIST, and of course, you change your opinion.


lol my opinion didn't change...
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Homage
lol my opinion didn't change...


really... let's see if you say the opposite later by quoting your words
Originally posted by Homage
You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to introduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.

And they never said simple.

let's see if these are the same words, or even close

Originally posted by Homage

hey homie there's this thing called wind/air pressure and it happens to be a big deal for taller structures.

belittling it to a standard statics problem is ignorance as gnosis would put it


You sure did keep the same stance... Your opinion is that you will ignore facts... even when you thought you disagreed with them, but then suddenly agree because you find out it came from NIST


You, sir, are proving yourself to be less credible than sesame street when it comes to engineering!
 
Gart888
things!
offline
Link
 
wtf?

how is that showing his opinion change?

how2word.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Gart888
wtf?

how is that showing his opinion change?

how2word.


In one post he defends using static... the other he ridicules it. simple really
 
Gart888
things!
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
In one post he defends using static... the other he ridicules it. simple really


in both cases he says that a dynamic analysis would show more extreme loads. if it fails under static analysis there's no need to even do the dynamic analysis. speaking of really simple. :|
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Homage

hey homie there's this thing called wind/air pressure and it happens to be a big deal for taller structures.

belittling it to a standard statics problem is ignorance as gnosis would put it


In that post he thinks I am an idiot for posting what later turned out to be the words of NIST


later he found out it was NIST and his words became

You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis

in which he also said

If we were to introduce other factors such as wind

Which does not quite match up with this

hey homie there's this thing called wind/air pressure and it happens to be a big deal for taller structures.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Gart888
in both cases he says that a dynamic analysis would show more extreme loads. if it fails under static analysis there's no need to even do the dynamic analysis. speaking of really simple. :|


Not when it comes to conservation of momentum or energy

You are proving your lack of knowledge as well

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm

In a collision, the momentum change of object 1 is equal to and opposite of the momentum change of object 2. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2. In most collisions between two objects, one object slows down and loses momentum while the other object speeds up and gains momentum. If object 1 loses 75 units of momentum, then object 2 gains 75 units of momentum. Yet, the total momentum of the two objects (object 1 plus object 2) is the same before the collision as it is after the collision. The total momentum of the system (the collection of two objects) is conserved.
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
In one post he defends using static... the other he ridicules it. simple really


lol

ny snarky comment was a little too forward and if you want to nitpick... sure it wasn't entirely accurate. However, it doesn't change the fact that there was more going on than just gravity loads. I have no doubt NIST wouldn't even say that. However, to present something in lamens terms sometimes you have to simplify. My opinion on the manner never changed. I don't think a simple statics problem can accurately represent what happened. However, modeling anything else is a very dangerous path to take.
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Not when it comes to conservation of momentum or energy

You are proving your lack of knowledge as well


http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm

In a collision, the momentum change of object 1 is equal to and opposite of the momentum change of object 2. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2. In most collisions between two objects, one object slows down and loses momentum while the other object speeds up and gains momentum. If object 1 loses 75 units of momentum, then object 2 gains 75 units of momentum. Yet, the total momentum of the two objects (object 1 plus object 2) is the same before the collision as it is after the collision. The total momentum of the system (the collection of two objects) is conserved.


 
baumusc
offline
Link
 
Peer reviewed explanations on the WTC collapses.

WTC 7:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

WTC 1, 2:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_truth_movement_the_top_conspiracy_theory_a_decade_later

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf



Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.