9/11

I don't know. But that's neither here nor there since I'm not asking you to refute them.

I'm asking you to address this:

The point here is that you took the NIST's word that the core columns were compromised to the point of failure because of the fire even though they admitted to not knowing the extent of the fire beyond a few meters inside the Tower, and even though their own computer simulation shows that the core area was the coolest area. Maybe that's because they were aware of the fact that “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2), and that “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3). You haven't responded to that.

And this:

NCSTAR 1-5, section 3.2 describes the first of only two series of physical tests conducted by NIST designed to predict the temperatures and heat release rate (HRR) profiles that the WTC buildings (1 and 2) might have experienced due to building combustibles. (A second series was conducted for the purpose of validating a computer simulation.) Unfortunately, NIST lists only the heat release rates and mass loss profiles--it does not list the temperatures attained during the tests. This is significant in that it is critical to establish whether common office furnishings and equipment, such as the WTC buildings contained, could have reached temperatures sufficient to cause the structural systems to fail. The issue becomes more relevant in light of several considerations, such as:

• Modern office furniture is required to meet strict flame-resistant standards. It is unlikely that any items in the typical office spaces contained any unusually combustible materials. As NIST noted, “visits to showrooms indicated that, while there was a broad range of prices and appearances, the cubicles were fundamentally similar.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para4)

• NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

• Even significant workstation fires would fail to support the theory that fire significantly weakened the critical core columns, since “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

That speaks to the severity of the fires. Address that.

 

Oh, but you are asking me to refute them if you are copying and pasting directly from them



You:

"I'm asking you to address this:

The point here is that you took the NIST's word that the core columns were compromised to the point of failure because of the fire even though they admitted to not knowing the extent of the fire beyond a few meters inside the Tower, and even though their own computer simulation shows that the core area was the coolest area. Maybe that's because they were aware of the fact that “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2), and that “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3). You haven't responded to that.

And this:

NCSTAR 1-5, section 3.2 describes the first of only two series of physical tests conducted by NIST designed to predict the temperatures and heat release rate (HRR) profiles that the WTC buildings (1 and 2) might have experienced due to building combustibles. (A second series was conducted for the purpose of validating a computer simulation.) Unfortunately, NIST lists only the heat release rates and mass loss profiles--it does not list the temperatures attained during the tests. This is significant in that it is critical to establish whether common office furnishings and equipment, such as the WTC buildings contained, could have reached temperatures sufficient to cause the structural systems to fail. The issue becomes more relevant in light of several considerations, such as:

• Modern office furniture is required to meet strict flame-resistant standards. It is unlikely that any items in the typical office spaces contained any unusually combustible materials. As NIST noted, “visits to showrooms indicated that, while there was a broad range of prices and appearances, the cubicles were fundamentally similar.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para4)

• NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

• Even significant workstation fires would fail to support the theory that fire significantly weakened the critical core columns, since “fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p51para2)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

That speaks to the severity of the fires. Address that."


And from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...tigation.doc&usg=AOvVaw0hdBI9UxYSTDLqdwP4oyrf

2.1 Single Workstation Burn



NCSTAR 1-5, section 3.2 describes the first of only two series of physical tests conducted by NIST designed to predict the temperatures and heat release rate (HRR) profiles that the WTC buildings (1 and 2) might have experienced due to building combustibles. (A second series was conducted for the purpose of validating a computer simulation.) Unfortunately, NIST lists only the heat release rates and mass loss profiles--it does not list the temperatures attained during the tests. This is significant in that it is critical to establish whether common office furnishings and equipment, such as the WTC buildings contained, could have reached temperatures sufficient to cause the structural systems to fail. The issue becomes more relevant in light of several considerations, such as:

• Modern office furniture is required to meet strict flame-resistant standards. It is unlikely that any items in the typical office spaces contained any unusually combustible materials. As NIST noted, “visits to showrooms indicated that, while there was a broad range of prices and appearances, the cubicles were fundamentally similar.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para4)

I googled this: "As NIST noted, “visits to showrooms indicated that, while there was a broad range of prices and appearances, the cubicles were fundamentally similar.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para 4)"

And the only two search results that came up in the whole wide world where the link to the 2006 MS word document at www.journalof911studies.com and now page 79 of this thread at hip forums

So out of the whole wide world, in the last 12 years you have been the only person to bother copying and pasting at least that sentence anywhere. And I invite anyone else to do the same, google that sentence, see what happens

This shows us:

1) How not effective that little MS word doc from 2006 was in the first place
2) Is there actually anyone left arguing this shit?

 

So just to be clear, I didnt say the whole thing would fall down, For everyone else, I said the core area, that part in the middle of the building, the centre columns, if built up to around the 15 storey mark without the rest of the building around it, yes would collapse on itself. No planes, no fire, just not designed to support itself alone

And we are now on record as you saying "You go ahead and provide the source for that silly idea of yours"

This has been the core (pun intended) of your argument the last 60 pages, and the last 17 years. Why cant you work stuff like that out?

Just like the example I gave of replacing the volume of the top 20 stories with custard and it would collapse on itself, and you and your little friend laughed at me


Even without any quick calculations, it should be self evident, why do you think you never see them building a building like that building up the centre first



You have one or two other guys in this thread that are going to hate on the government, particularly a republican government anyway you think are agreeing with you, but arent bothering to read all this shit anyway

 

No one should just believe what they say about 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its so obvious it didnt happen as they try to say it did!!!!!

 

It's a pretty well established fact that forces within the American gov't are willing to use American lives as fodder for their own ends, so please don't try to act like the American gov't is pure and holy, because they most certainly aren't. Could a false flag operation on the scale of 9/11 be organized by them? Unequivocally yes. They are totally willing to sacrifice American lives for their own agenda. Anyone who says differently is selling you something.

 

Everyone has had 17 years, theres that number again, 17 years, love saying that, reinforcing that, sounding like a broken record, you've all had 17 years to come up with something better than:

Oh anyone that thinks it happened like "they" said it did is a moron

Oh yeah, well how did it happen then?

Uh uh uh uh , I dont know, just not the way "they" say, thats for sure, believe me, buildings fell at virtual freefall into their own footprint

Oh yeah, how were they supposed to fall then?

Uh uh uh uh , I dont know, thats not on youtube

 

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you provide something that supports your claim here.

 

Oh, he is back

Did you just get the electricity bill in the mail or something and its way too high, your are pissed off so want to argue


Its not really up to me to provide anything, you are the one arguing the buildings couldnt have fallen down

And in this particular case now, you are arguing anytime they build a similar type tubular skscraper, they should be able to build the centre up before the rest of each floor, why not, its made of super strong steel....why do they never do it that way?

Its up to you to convince everyone else, the 82nd page now, if the building didnt come down the way the government said, then how?

Then you say something like, oh I dont have to have a theory, I just know the government is lying....you've had 17 years to work on ....something....anything

 

Riiight. You make the claim that the core structure would just crumble at the height of 15 stories, but when asked to provide something to support that claim, you decide that it's not really up to you to provide anything. Understood.

 

You do it, its time for you to show everyone how, why

The only calculation I have seen from you thus far is the 1.5 kwh x 90,000 for your bizarre concrete recycling thing

 

I'll take that as a "no," you can't support your claim.

 

Family tragedy. And thanks for asking.

 

To who?

One thing I have learned reading up on all this stuff again this year is, I dont think anyone is even maintaining most of those truther sites anymore

 

And one thing I've learned in just the past few posts is that your claim that the core structure could not stand on its own at the height of 15 stories is unsupported by anything.

 

Ken Kuttler has built a reputation for himself of misapplying math principles to the collapse of the WTC towers.

Kuttler posted a paper on the web circa 2007 about modeling the collapse of the WTC tower collapse using a differential equation. The equation was valid for describing a collapse mechanism that involves inelastic collisions, but he applied an inappropriate boundary condition to the equation. His boundary condition was for a collapse that started with an infinitesimally thin layer at the very top of the tower, which gives a collapse rate at the beginning of the collapse that is slower than what was observed and a collapse duration of about 16 seconds. He preferred his faulty method because it yielded a collapse rate and duration which he said was too slow and long and that therefore an unspecified 'something else' caused the collapse.

The appropriate boundary condition for the collapse is the location near the aircraft impact region which is where the global collapse started, not the very top of the tower. When the appropriate boundary condition is applied, the differential equation gives collapse rates and durations that are consistent with the visual record and that are consistent with the discrete algebraic inelastic collision model that Frank Greening used.

The calculated and observed speed of the crush front is higher and the crush-down duration shorter when the collapse begins at a lower height due to the larger mass of the falling upper block being slowed less by its impacts with the next story. It's why the calculated and visually measured collapse rate of WTC2 (larger upper block) is higher than that of WTC1. It's firm evidence of gravity driving the collapse, not 'something else'. It's also why a bottom-up global collapse that starts near the ground level, similar to what occurred with WTC7, can have a collapse rate near freefall early in the collapse. Nearly all of the weight of the building is bearing down on a story near the ground level which provides little slowing of the collapse, in contrast to a top-down collapse where a small potion of the total number of stories is impacting the next story and being slowed to a greater extent by the impact.

 

Happy 18th Anniversary everyone

 

That time of year again, already?

Punch on, folks.

 

I'll go first.

Out of all the whacko conspiracy shit I'm into these days and my distrust in anything the news ever said, I still reckon that the planes knocked the buildings down and there's no real conspiracy. I have no proof and no evidence. That's just my opinion.

 

Oh, I thought this was a serious thread. I'll leave now.

 

Show me a signed piece of paper from the President that has him sign off on the conspiracy plan.






I'll wait.