Here's what I posted the last time Rosie's nonsense was posted here:
She starts out by claiming that "ALL" the steel was removed and shipped off to "Canada" ... er ... "China", "right away". She says there is no metal to test. That is absolutely false. Hundreds of structural engineers and other investigators had plenty of time to visit the WTC site and see the steel insitu, before the steel was removed. Then it went to Fresh Kill where again they got to examine it and retain those samples they considered important to understanding what happened. And tens of thousands of pieces of steel are still being retained for historical purposes and future studies. Rosie is either uninformed or a partisan liar.
Next, in the video, she says that WTC 7 "got hit by nothing". She's either uninformed or a liar. It got hit by significant amounts of debris from the collapse of the towers. That debris ripped a huge hole out of the south side of building. According to the firemen who where on the scene, a 20 story high hole.
Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse. Rosie seems to think it was bombs. Show me how that might work.
Next, she claims it took the towers "9 seconds" to fall and that is the same as "free-fall". Well her claim is FALSE. From numerous credible sources (including actual videos of the collapse which one can time) one can learn that the towers actually took about 15 seconds to collapse. One can look at hundreds of still images of the collapses and immediately see that there was debris free-falling much faster than the collapsing level of the towers were descending. She surely has to have seen these images. So Rosie is either a liar or hasn't bothered to apply the least bit of thought to interpreting what she saw or the least bit of energy into investigating the issue.
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either. All she is really doing is hurting the effort to find out what really happened on 9/11. There are good questions to ask but if *truthers* make no effort to stop idiots like Rosie from muddying the water with nonsense and lies, you will never find the truth. People like her are the *truth* movement's worst enemy.
And in anticipation of nolu_chan's "notice", let me add:
: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?
They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.
Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.
#21. To: BeAChooser, Nolu Chan, Christine, Zipporah, Kamala, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Everyone Interested In How Silly The Government's Official Collapse Story REALLY Sounds (#1)
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either.
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
BUT, demolition experts the world over should be VERY thankful to OBL, and those 19 Mooslim cohorts that set out to prove the worlds "experts" wrong!!! They showed that not only DOES it work, but with an extremely high success rate! In fact, 100% success rate (it would have worked on the Pentagon too, but that one was a little to "sprawled out")!
Just think of all the profit potential this has for demolition firms... Hell, all they need is to purchase some decommissioned aircraft; have it outfitted with remote control capability (Systems Planning Corporation - [Zakheim's old haunt] can help them with that, it's their specialty); buy 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (around 30 grand at today's prices); and in less than 2 hours have that sucker down!!!!! It'll save god-only-knows how many man-hours rigging buildings for weeks and months in advance, plus the costs of the explosives themselves, and the need for high paid professionals to handle those explosives. And that's for one of the world's LARGEST structures!! Why shit, if it's a small enough eye-sore (like a 20 story run-down old office they need to "take out" to make room for a parking lot for the new bank) they could probably even get by with a little old twin-engine Cessna - and get the job done REALLY dirt cheap!!!
Wonder when Controled Demolition Inc is gonna start using this newfound technology???
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/2002-04-29-klein.htm "Why the Towers Fell': Larry Klein ... snip ... I had a chance to listen to someone who specializes in taking buildings down (imploding them), and he stated that when he saw the damage to the Towers he knew they were coming down, and he tried to call the New York City emergency agency and couldn't get through."
And if you told the rest of those professionals what we now know ... that the planes would impact the building at nearly maximum velocity, that the impact would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires either ... then I suspect a great many more would have had doubts about the structures, too.
This is what you quoted from innieway in your reply to him:
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
And the first line of your answer:
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
I guess you are still trying to learn the kindergarten version of the dictionary, yes, the one with all the full color pretty pictures in it.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
ladybug, don't you think that what the experts said shortly after the collapse might be an indication of what they would have said before the collapse ... PROVIDED they knew all the facts we now know about the situation?
In other words (and I clarify this only because you seem to have had difficulty understand my reasoning the first time I stated it), if PRIOR TO 911, you told the professional engineering community around the world that large commercial jets would impact the towers at nearly maximum velocity, that the impacts would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes would have nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires ... then I suspect a great many more than "not a single one" would have had doubts about the structures surviving.
Now you once told me with great confidence that "there are structural engineers out there that KNOW that the official story is NOT POSSIBLE, but you will not listen to THOSE experts" so I'm challenging you to NAME some of those structural engineers who think the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes. Can you offer a name or are you just PRETENDING that there are structural engineers out there that agree with you and the rest of the 4um *truthers*? Last time I asked that question of you ... well ... you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
I shall address your closing statement first.
Anyone who knows me (there are a couple on the forum) knows for a fact that I do not spend as much time online in the summer time. I spend the vast majority of my time producing our own food, including vegetable gardens, milking goats and a cow, and even growing our own feed for the milk animals. I also make our own butter, and so on. So that means I have much less time to address your drivel than you may like.
As to "experts", for starters, it only takes common sense to realize something is definitely wrong with the official 9/11 story, but if you need an expert to tell you this, here is a site that has several educated folks that can put common sense into "big words" for people like you that only believe what the "officials" tell you.
I am sure you will find a list of excuses why these officials don't count, but I really don't care what ignorant people like you think.
My point regarding your reply to inniway's post is simple. If flying planes into buildings is such a sure fired way to make the damn thing fall into it's own footprint, then you find me an expert that thinks this is such a great idea. After all, it worked so well on 9/11 - they dropped 3 buildings with only 2 planes.
Until you can provide me with such an expert, there is no need for you to grace me with one of your precious little 15 posts for the day.
Gosh, that must be hell on such a big mouth as you to be so limited.
"City in the Sky, The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center," James Glanz and Eric Lipton, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2003, First paperback edition 2004, ISBN: 0-8050-7691-3, p. 131
"Salient points with regard to the structural design of The World Trade Center towers" was the low-key title on the white paper in the Port Authority's files. Below the title were eleven numbered points on the structure, beginning with: "1. The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings." At the end of the three-page document was the notation "MPL.fg" above the date "2-3-64" - meaning that the white paper had been typed for Malcolm P. Levy by his secretary, Florence Grainger, on February 3,1964.
Some of the numbered points gave routine summaries of the expected characteristics of the twin towers' engineering design. But halfway down the first page, the paper contained this astonishing statement:
3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
Whatever the origin of the white paper, it suggests clearly that the Skilling firm - whether with or without the assistance of Port Authority engineers is not specified - looked at what would happen if a Boeing 707 or a McDonnell Douglas DC-8 rammed the World Trade Center.
Richard Roth, an architect and partner in the firm of Emery Roth and Sons who had worked with Yamasaki wrote the following:
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives nd safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
Chief Structural Engineer John Skilling stated in 1993:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."
However, Skilling said, "the building structure would still be there."
Not knowing the towers were readily collapsible and that the white paper was a fraud, and that many engineers knew the buildings were subject to total collapse failure, the insurance companies provided billions of dollars of coverage. The insurance companies evidently never heard of any of the many engineers who knew the buildings would collapse.
It should be noted that the firefighters did reach the impact zone in 2WTC. FDNY Chief Orio Palmer, who was a marathoner, led his group up to the 78th floor impact zone. He was the first to reach the impact zone of either tower.
At 9:52, Chief Palmer radioed, "We've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."
He added, "Radio, radio, radio that -- 78th floor, numerous 10-45 Code Ones." [On the 78th floor there were numerous dead civilians.]
If you ever have some time try finding and reading about the mysterious NIST "soffits".
Soffits are new to me but here is what my newly acquired knowledge indicates.
Soffit: another way to say gypsum drywall.
4 ft soffit: a slab of gypsum drywall 4 feet wide and perhaps one-half to three-quarters of an inch thick.
==================
From NIST Final Report:
p. 144
One principal step was the determination of those variables that most affected the outcome of the various computer simulations. Sensitivity studies and examination of components and subsystems were carried out for the modeling of the aircraft impact, the fires, and the structural response to impact damage and fires. For each of the most influential variables, a central or middle value and reasonable high and low values were identified. Further computations refined the selection of these values. The computations also were improved to include physical processes that could play a significant role in the structural degradation of the towers.
The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower.
Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance, the observed window breakage was an input to the fire simulations and the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted within the range of values derived from the subsystem computations.
[nc note - adjust the variables until the building falls. By adjusting the variables, this methodology could provide faux proof that a bumblebee could fly into the wall of a tower and knock it over. Note that they were the sole judge of what was within the realm of "physical reality." The surreal Bush administration discovered the "physical reality" that maltreatment is not torture unless it causes organ failure or death. By this surreal Bushian definition, piercing the subject's liver with a knitting needle repeatedly would not be torture if the subject lived and did not suffer organ failure.]
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. Cases B and D accomplished this in a manner that was consistent with the principal observables and the governing physics.
-----
From NIST Final Report:
p. 126
6.10.3 The Four Cases
* * *
In Cases B and D, a more severe representation of the damage was to leave a 4 ft gypsum wallboard soffit that would maintain a hot upper layer on each fire floor. This produced a fire of longer duration near the core columns and the attached floor membranes.
[nc note - the wallboard soffit was apparently indestructible. The ceiling soffit was assumed to all be dislodged and without effect.]
Technical conference of the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Session VI - Structural Fire Response and collapse Analysis
Observations for Structural Response
Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact
September 15, 2005
Therese McAllister
-----
Page 25
Criteria for Dislodged Passive Fire Protection of Floor Trusses
If the debris impact damaged or destroyed room furnishings (modular office workstations), then the debris field was considered to extend high enough to be strong enough to dislodge the fire protection in the same floor area.
If the debris field did not damage room furnishings, then the fire protection in the same floor area was considered to be intact.
[nc note - if there was furniture damage in an area, all fire protection in the area was considered dislodged.]
Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer 17th September 2001, revised 19th September, minor revision on impact force made 8th October, minor revisions made 11 December (see elaboration (below))
* * *
The floor system comprised 900 mm (35.5 inches) deep bar joists (the FEMA report claims the trusses where 737mm (29 inches) deep) spaced at 2.04 m centers and braced by secondary joists. These secondary joists then supported a profiled deck on which was poured a 100 mm thick light-weight concrete slab. The top of the bar joists stood above the soffit of the decking and was cast into the concrete slab to make the bar joists composite in a similar manner to the Speedfloor system.
Executive Summary Extracted from NIST NCSTAR 1-5 (Draft) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)
* * *
E.3 BUILDING INTERIORS AND COMBUSTIBLES
NIST obtained architectural plans for most of the floors in the impact and fire zones of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These included the locations of interior walls, descriptions of the floor and ceiling construction, and additional features such as the locations of staircases within the tenant spaces.
Since the ceiling system could have served as a temporary protective barrier to heating of the floor structure above, shaking table experiments were conducted to determine the magnitude of building impact that could have led to significant dislodging of ceiling tiles. Forces of the order of 5g caused significant damage to the framing. Since the aircraft impact forces were estimated to have been about 100g, NIST assumed there was not enough of the ceiling system in place to provide significant thermal protection.
[nc note - The NIST Final Report at p.120 below changed "not enough of the ceiling system in place to provide significant thermal protection" to "assumed that the ceiling tiles in the impact and fire zones were fully dislodged."]
==================
NSTAR FINAL REPORT
-----
p. 92
Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software package for performing finite element calculations for the analysis and design of building structures. These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 100 stories above grade and the six subterranean levels. ...
LERA also developed reference models of a truss-framed floor, typical of those in the tenant spaces of the impact and fire regions of the buildings, and of a beam-framed floor, typical of the mechanical floors.
-----
p. 97
Truss seat connection failure from vertical loads was found to be unlikely, since the needed increase in vertical load was unreasonable for temperatures near 600°C to 700°C.
-----
p. 120
6.9.4 Damage to Ceiling System
The aircraft impact modeling did not include the ceiling tile systems. To estimate whether the tiles would survive the aircraft impact, the University at buffalo, under contract to NIST, conducted tests of WTC-like ceiling tile systems using their shake table (Figure 6-29) and impulses related to those induced by the aircraft impact on the towers. The data indicated that accelerations of approximately 5g would most likely result in substantial displacement of ceiling times. Given the estimated impact accelerations of approximately 100g, NIST assumed that the ceiling tiles in the impact and fire zones were fully dislodged. This was consistent with the multiple reports of severely damaged ceilings (Chapter 7).
-----
p. 147
The four cases described in this chapter represented fires that were far more severe than this:
About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple stories, quickly and simultaneously igniting hundreds of workstations and other combustibles.
The aircraft and subsequent fireballs created large open areas in the building exterior through which air could flow to support the fires.
The impact and debris removed the insulation from a large number of structural elements that were then subjected to the heat from the fires.
Great posts. Whats reality? In the NISTIAN world, anything is possible.
What people need to know is, if there was ANY damage, say a broken desk, NIST then ASSUMES 100% damage of the entire area.
In NISTs cartoon world, the soffits are as important as the removal of 100% of the fireproofing. NIST needs these to jack up and prolong the thermal gas temps from the trumped up multiple workstation burn tests.
Just think of this, in the tweeked up severe cases, NIST "adjusts" the aircraft speed, size, weight and angle, then decreases the towers capacity.
The aircraft destroys 5 floors(9 floors in the computer model)of floor slabs, trusses, office contents, SFRM, cement board, gypsum, severs and damages massive core girders and outer collumns, BUT low and behold, somehow the "magical" soffits remain.
The NIST reports conclusions are false. Period. It covers the governments story and also covers its own ass. There is enough truth and evidence in the report in case NIST comes under fire, NIST can claim, "We had the evidence, but our conclusons were wrong."