Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Celebrity Deniers List

Okay, I thought it might be a good idea to start compiling a list of the buffoonish celebrities who have come out in favor of 9-11 Denial. The kooks picked up a new one today, Daniel Sunjata, who has been in a few movies and apparently is a regular on "Rescue Me", one of the many TV shows I have never watched. Here's the list as I have it:

Rosie O'Donnell
James Brolin
Charlie Sheen
David Lynch
Daniel Sunjata
Christine Ebersole
Ed Asner
Ed Begley, Jr.

Any others?

Labels:

64 Comments:

At 21 March, 2007 10:44, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

I have to say, his peculiar politics aside, I still think David Lynch is one of the greatest film directors in the world. It annoys me greatly when I do a search on YouTube looking for some cool Lynch rarities and all I can find is cobbled-together video from some halfwits talking about how surely the mainstream media cannot ignore the questions of a man whose last film made nearly $4.50 at the box office, etc etc etc.

He's a damn sight better than Dylan Avery, at the very least. Wouldn't catch David Lynch complaining that people are just trying to confuse him by using phrases like "mise-en-scene", that's for sure.

 
At 21 March, 2007 10:57, Blogger spoonfed said...

Kooks! I love it!

How very original of you.

Do you like get paid everytime you use that word here?

 
At 21 March, 2007 11:16, Blogger troy said...

What?

You deranged lunatics would prefer to be called asshats or fucktards?

 
At 21 March, 2007 11:38, Blogger spoonfed said...

You deranged lunatics would prefer to be called asshats or fucktards?

Wow, even better -- show some of that hate group mentality!

You guys are so with it!

Let's hear it for those creationists who can't handle the science.

David Lynch is a visual artist who uses his eyes and brain to create his visions on film. He doesn't need a degree in physics to know something is wrong with the official story.

 
At 21 March, 2007 11:44, Blogger troy said...

Spoonfed,

Why do you hate America so much?

It's not that bad a place...really, it's not. Lot's of opportunity in this great Country.

Sorry, you feel differently. May I suggest Venezuala for a new home? Your type seems to think Hugo Chavez is a great guy. Hopefully Bush won't have him whacked.

 
At 21 March, 2007 11:45, Blogger troy said...

David Lynch is a visual artist who uses his eyes and brain to create his visions on film. He doesn't need a degree in physics to know something is wrong with the official story.

Kevin Barrett, is that you?

 
At 21 March, 2007 12:02, Blogger Geedubya said...

Ahh.....perhaps another list would be fun.

Kooks
deniers
asshats
cultists
tin-hatters
twoofers
flat-earthers
fringers
shoah shirkers
underwear detectives
YouTubers
terrorist defense league

it's like a thesaurus thingy!

 
At 21 March, 2007 12:31, Blogger Dean Malenko Eats Dogs said...

Jesse Ventura is a maybe. But one must consider the source as questionable at best.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/260906venturaquestions.htm

 
At 21 March, 2007 12:34, Blogger texasjack said...

DBS, David Lynch is also one of my favorites, however, he is not a troother. He just has "questions". Alex Jones asked him if 911 was an inside job, and he wouldn't answer, he just went on some weird tangents.

 
At 21 March, 2007 12:54, Blogger shawn said...

Let's hear it for those creationists who can't handle the science.

You do realize that you're the creationists, right?

Spoonfed is a great name for a CT.

 
At 21 March, 2007 12:56, Blogger spoonfed said...

Creationists! Yes!

Let's use that -- that'll work! Genius!

Forget the asshat, fucktard labels...

 
At 21 March, 2007 12:57, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey Shawn
Do you think he will give us an example of his science?

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:00, Blogger Pat said...

Lynch endorsed Loose Change; that gets him the nutbar label.

Spoonfed, we use words like kooks, morons, nutbars, dolts, tinfoil hatters, etc., a lot around here, but usually only when they're earned.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:16, Blogger spoonfed said...

Hey -- did I earn one of those labels?

Here's a question for you guys -- maybe some of you are scientists with 'credentials' --

give me a physics model that shows global collapse of WTC 1&2 based impact and fire. Not initiation. Complete, global collapse.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:26, Blogger Alex said...

lol. Why? That's like saying "give me a model that shows a bullet will continue through a body after piercing the skin". It's absolutely pointless. We KNOW it will penetrate based on our understanding of the forces involved, we don't need to model it.

Ditto for the collapse of the buildings - there's no way to justify the time and expense involved in creating such a model when we wouldn't learn anything new from it. I'd be pretty pissed if NIST caved to twoofer demands and actually wasted taxpayer money on modelling the collapse.

On the other hand, you're more than welcome to ask your "scholars" to come up with such a model. I'm sure they'd be interested in it.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:34, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
You and I both know there is more than enough info out there that has answered that. He thinks by repeating the same crap it will make him sound intelligent and give himself some credibility. Typ Toofer logic.
He like all toofers has yet to answer one question that we have a right to ask him.
Talking sense to people like these serves as much purpose as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:43, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Truth can be painful sometimes spoonfed.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:45, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

He doesn't need a degree in physics to know something is wrong with the official story.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You do deserve to sit in the corner with the "fucktard" cap on.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:51, Blogger spoonfed said...

Why? That's like saying "give me a model that shows a bullet will continue through a body after piercing the skin". It's absolutely pointless. We KNOW it will penetrate based on our understanding of the forces involved, we don't need to model it.


You don't need to model it?

Really? Gee, I guess all buildings should collapse completely if you can prove (poorly I might add) that ONE FLOOR can collapse.

You lose. You have zero credibility with statements like that.

And talking about tax-payer money -- gimme a break. Is that supposed to be some kinfd of ligitimate excuse for not performing a proper scientific investigation?

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:52, Blogger spoonfed said...

Name calling -- wow I'm impressed.

And you ask about MY credentials?

This place is like hanging out at an elementary schoolyard.

You're desperation is obvious.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:55, Blogger spoonfed said...

And anytime someone wants to answer my two questions, I will listen.

namely, why aren't those questioning 9/11 on the decline if your science is so sound?

And show me a model for global collapse based on science, since you are based in science and shun all those kooky creationists ...

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:57, Blogger ewing2001 said...

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=3064
Updates: ABC7/Pro Rosie 9/11 Protest successful with Local Groups, 911tvfakery.net + DVD Delivery

By ewing2001

updates now at:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/338

incl.
"Alex Jones + Paul Watson are bold Liars and Dramatization Queens"

 
At 21 March, 2007 14:04, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey spooney you are still tapdancing and posting slogans. You talk about research, the information is all there if you
bother to do some real research instead of the spoonfeeding that the toofers have done to you.
Have you ever done any modeling? It is only one question, you won't answer any of ours and you talk about credibility LOL

The investigation around 9/11 was the most intensive and comprehensive investigation ever done. It involved 1000's of people who are a lot smarter than you. So please, enlighten us as to what happened and why you think the released version is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

Where did these 1000's of people go wrong?

What did they miss?

Why don't you give a detailed counter explaination with facts and experts to back it up

Where is your list of experts that will back up what you claim?

How a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

 
At 21 March, 2007 14:17, Blogger James said...

Michael Moore. Kinda.

 
At 21 March, 2007 14:18, Blogger Alex said...

Really? Gee, I guess all buildings should collapse completely if you can prove (poorly I might add) that ONE FLOOR can collapse.

You're misrepresenting the collapse scenario. Either you don't understand what actually happened, or you're lying. Either way, you're starting off with a false premise.

You lose. You have zero credibility with statements like that.

Your ignorance is not my concern.

And talking about tax-payer money -- gimme a break. Is that supposed to be some kinfd of ligitimate excuse for not performing a proper scientific investigation?

It's a reason for not performing unnecessary experiments. If there were any reason to model the actual collapse I'd have no problem with public funds being spend, but you have yet to actually offer one good reason for doing such a study, and I certainly can't see any. NIST seems to agree with me.

 
At 21 March, 2007 14:21, Blogger CHF said...

More stupid celebrities but no engineers.

I think the twoof movement needs to shift their focus a tad.

 
At 21 March, 2007 14:24, Blogger shawn said...

Hey Shawn
Do you think he will give us an example of his science?


Based on what I've read, he doesn't seem to understand what the word "science" means.

 
At 21 March, 2007 14:58, Blogger Jay said...

Spoonfed, here is some science for you. The calculation of the collapsing of the twin towers. Maybe u can have a go at it and try to debunk it.

So good luck with your calculations.

 
At 21 March, 2007 15:01, Blogger Jay said...

Did i also mention, that this article has never been debunked. And that no civil engineer questions the outcomes?

 
At 21 March, 2007 15:09, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"And talking about tax-payer money -- gimme a break. Is that supposed to be some kinfd of ligitimate excuse for not performing a proper scientific investigation?"

Then show some scientist respected in the field of engineering who say a more in depth investigation is needed.

The engineers who have looked at the collapse have no problem in understanding what happened. but because a bunch of truthers can't seem to grasp the concepts we are being asked to spend money to create nice pictures and video animations for them.

I am sorry but I don't think I should have my tax dollars waisted because you won't crack a science book and read up on basic physics.

 
At 21 March, 2007 15:16, Blogger Jay said...

Spoonfed is just a simple guy, demanding answers. Although i don't think he understands the answers he will get from any scientific study to be honest. So no matter how many scientists agree with the NIST report, Spoonfed will never believe it, because he is to stupid to actually understand what scientific research actually means.

 
At 21 March, 2007 15:21, Blogger Stevew said...

Hey Jay I thought I said that LOL

 
At 21 March, 2007 16:51, Blogger spoonfed said...

Jay said...

Spoonfed, here is some science for you. The calculation of the collapsing of the twin towers. Maybe u can have a go at it and try to debunk it.


This paper does not give a model for global collapse. It is a simplified explanation which does not take into the failure of the 47 core columns.

Not that you shouldn't be skeptical about anything by Bazant who published a paper on the collapse 2 days after 9/11.

The paper says: "No experienced structural engineer anticipated that the buildings would collapse." hmmm...now, why would that be?

 
At 21 March, 2007 17:38, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

spoonfed said: "This place is like hanging out at an elementary schoolyard."

lol. This coming from from the person who opened up with:

"Kooks! I love it!

How very original of you.

Do you like get paid everytime you use that word here?"

 
At 21 March, 2007 17:38, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The investigation around 9/11 was the most intensive and comprehensive investigation ever done.

LIE ALERT...BEEP BEEP BEEP LIE ALERT! The above statement is a bold face lie.
This an alert by the National Truth Advisory. The Alert you are about to read is based on facts and figured supplied by the Government Accounting Office. This is not a drill.
BEEP...BEEP...BEEP

More money, time, and effort was spent on investigating Clinton's blow job and land deals than 9/11. GAO reports nearly $80 million spent on Whitewater and Monica. Even slick Willy testified under oath, Bush and Cheney refused and stalled the investigation and set the 9/11 Commission up to fail.


$50 million for the NASA Colombia disaster. And we all know the ratio between space shuttles, high rise building, and terrorist attacks.

9/11 Commission that was set up to fail with 100 people that have something to hide and the end result Americans may never know the truth: $15 million

BPAT: $600,000, 500,000 in ASCE contributions.

NIST intial budget: $16 million
NIST 2005 Budget: $20 million
Makes you wonder why they put more effort and money into 4 years later, eh?
End result: Fire and damage initiated collaspe and gravity became a hell of alot more powerful after Jeff Skilling, the lead Structural Engineer died.

Oh and the final recommendations: improved fire proofing and better evacuation routes.

I might add increased security in high profile American targets but that wasn't their recommendation, that was mine.

OH and Spoonfed, they can't or will refuse to answer that model question. They know NIST refused to release the model and they know NIST did not model the global collapse. They also know that in order to do so would require the use of explosive devices and a hell of alot more energy than gravity, which conflicts with their entire world view.

Truthy, stop repeating the same bullshit. I linked weeks and weeks ago to the NSE call for the release of the models for the most important reason of all to check for accuracy and to ensure the future safety of steel framed structures.
OH and truthy, feel free to release a list of Structural Engineers and or their firms that have study the NIST's data, models, and collected evidence. So stop pouring that flismy counterarguement out of your mouth. To put it in your words, it is debunked.

Ahhh the power of gravity.

BTW, all that 'smoke' coming from WTC 7, wasn't coming from 7, it was coming from 5 and 6.

 
At 21 March, 2007 17:39, Blogger Alex said...

This paper does not give a model for global collapse.

What's your obsession with that? The paper also doesn't talk about the melting point of ice-cream. How is that relevant?

It is a simplified explanation which does not take into the failure of the 47 core columns.

Huh?

The paper says: "No experienced structural engineer anticipated that the buildings would collapse." hmmm...now, why would that be?

Because there was no way to predict the extent of the damage just by looking at the video footage. This is what you fools continually fail to grasp - you can't do forensic analysis of building collapse simply by looking at youtube videos.

There ARE some engineers who claim that they "knew right away" that the towers would collapse, but the only reason they came to that conclusion is because they started with a different set of assumptions. Realistically, there was no way to accurately predict what those towers would do without actually going inside and assessing the damage - the best you could do would be an "educated guess" based on the forces observed and the design tolerances of the WTC.

 
At 21 March, 2007 17:42, Blogger Alex said...

Swing, please. Even this new mental-midget makes you look like a moron in comparison. We really don't need your nonsense any more.

 
At 21 March, 2007 21:04, Blogger Richard said...

This paper does not give a model for global collapse.

True but had you actually read it you would see the reason why not.

"The kinetic energy of the top part of tower impacting the floor below was found to be
about 8:4x larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account (Bazant and Zhou 2002). This fact, along with the fact that, during the progressive collapse of underlying floors (Figs. 1d and 2) the kinetic energy rapidly increases (roughly in proportion to the square of the number of stories traversed), sufficed to Bazant and Zhou (2002) to conclude that the tower was doomed once the top part of tower has dropped through the height of one story (or even 0.5 m). It was also observed that this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous.


In layman's terms the momentum of the the upper floors impacting the floor under the point of impact was so great that the floors underneath did not have the capacity to stop it. By knowing the mass of the impacting floors and the load bearing capabilities of any given floor of the WTC it becomes quite clear that once it starts, it won't stop. There is no point simulating it because the outcome is already known and would add little to the understanding of the nature of the collapse.

It is a simplified explanation which does not take into the failure of the 47 core columns.

Though your definition of simplified and mine may differ the report is anything but. Had you read in detail the report you would see that it goes into detail as to the nature of the collapse mechanism. It even has a reference to you!

Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it was only local. Without stripping of much of the steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire could not have led to overall collapse. As generally accepted in structural engineering and structural mechanics community (though not among some laymen seeking to unveil a conspiracy), the failure scenario was as follows:

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected.
This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity for some of them.

2. Significant amount of fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris
(without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural
steel members heated up to 600±C [the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, and about 85% at 600±C,; and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially in the columns overloaded by load redistribution; the press reports right after
9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that.
3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled many perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m,). The bowing of these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral defections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also
decreased buckling strength.

4. The combination of six effects:

a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,

b) great lowering of yield limit and creep,

c)lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses,

d) weakened lateral support due to reduced
in-plane stiffness of sagging floors,

e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the
critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and

f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns.

As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor
height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of the tower.


Now if you would be so kind as to tell us exactly how that's wrong using a solid grounding in scientific principals and not conjecture we would be very happy to hear it.

 
At 22 March, 2007 06:34, Blogger Stevew said...

Richard
You are trying to explain to people who have no understanding what so ever about building design or destruction, all they do to counter in post the same mindless drivil to defend their POV. The smoke was from #7, all you have to do is look at a few piks to see sd's lies.
He has yet to give a list of qualified engineer's to back up his babble
There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts and never give their qualifications to spew these theories, they just spew what ever theory that suits their agenda.

 
At 22 March, 2007 07:50, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

I can list my firm, an architectural group that does it's own structural engineering (no, I'm not going to name it, we're fairly small and I don't want the harassment), and all of it's engineers as backing the conclusions of the NIST and FEMA report on WTC 1&2 collapsing. Most have read it simply as a guide for how to engineer a redundant system.

Six months or so ago, we moved into a new office recently, one we designed ourselves, and we moved in while there was still some construction on the third floor and some minor work in the bathrooms taking place.

One of the workers stopped by - a tall, kind of flabby 20-something with bleached hair - and asked us if we had seen a great movie called loose change. I knew what it was, but he started explaining it to some of the other engineering who found his claims of how it had to be CD incredulous. One of our senior engineers in the office started correcting him every time he opened his mouth when he was trying to explain it couldn't have been a structural collapse. Poor guy never knew what hit him.

Pretty much all of the engineers in the office had pretty much the same reaction when they saw the damage to the WTC. With that many columns destroyed, it was merely a matter of time before the whole thing came down.

One thing to remember about fire insulation, is that all it does is slow down the rate in which the columns heat up. It doesn't keep the columns nice and cool forever. The building designers assume that fairly quickly fire fighters will be able to reach the fire and put it out.

 
At 22 March, 2007 08:49, Blogger spoonfed said...

Alex said...

This paper does not give a model for global collapse.

What's your obsession with that? The paper also doesn't talk about the melting point of ice-cream. How is that relevant?


How is that relevant? What?!?!

Oh if you think it's not relevant I guess I shouldn't concern myself with it.

Yeah, the gloabl collapse scenario has nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Just three buildings collapsed completely. And acccording to the Bazant paper, no structural engineer anticipated such a scenario.

Yeah, why bother?

With statements liek that you lose credibility.

At least say something along the lines of " Well, it would be helpful to have a modelled global collapse scenario, but..."

Making arguments based on tax payer money doesn't help convince anyone of your dedication to the scientific method.

As for the paper, I did read it. And I stand by what I wrote. There is no factoring of the core columns -- only the perimeter columns. It is overly simplified.

BTW I do not argue for the potential of weakening, sagging of trusses, increased weight bearing, etc. The fact remains no one has produced a model of global collapse on WTC 1&2. And I haven't even mentioned WTC7 which is the weakest link in the whole official story, but I'm sure NIST will explain it fully with their report due out shortly.

 
At 22 March, 2007 08:59, Blogger spoonfed said...

One more note about the paper -- a point that is almost always overlooked in factoring in the temperatures of the fires and the consequent temp of steel and weakening, is that a fire can burn at 600 degrees C but that does not mean the steel in direct proximity will reach 600 degrees.

This is a completely false assumption. So the temperature of the steel cannot be automatically assumed to be the same as the fire.

If the world worked this way, all of us who have fireplaces or oil burners would be in serious trouble.

 
At 22 March, 2007 09:53, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Spoonfed is a genius, fires don't make things hot unless the material is actually on fire. I guess my convection oven doesn't really heat up my turkey on thanksgiving to 170 degrees with a oven temp of 325 degrees. I wonder what magic causes it to cook?

 
At 22 March, 2007 09:59, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

I should probably rephrase my previous comment, I am unfair to spoonfed. No one is saying that the steel was the exact same temperature as the fire. However the fire was cooking the steel and it was heating up overtime. This is one of the reasons why the building collapsed, the steel kept getting weaker and weaker until it did fail.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:08, Blogger spoonfed said...

Spoonfed is a genius, fires don't make things hot unless the material is actually on fire. I guess my convection oven doesn't really heat up my turkey on thanksgiving to 170 degrees with a oven temp of 325 degrees. I wonder what magic causes it to cook?

You just confirmed my comment -- thanks.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:16, Blogger spoonfed said...

And how long does it take that turkey to reach approx 1/2 the temperature of the oven?

Not a good example -- but it's yours not mine.

Column Steel would actually be even more difficult to heat in an open space fire, ie. on 9/11 not on Thanksgiving.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:38, Blogger CHF said...

Spoonfed,

In your expert opinion, why did we see the outter columns of the WTC bend inward on 9/11 before the collapse?

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:01, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Steel has a much lower thermal conductivity than turkey. This is why the insulation was put on the steel, as steel absorbs and sheds heat to the surrounding enviroment so easily.

Grab a pot that you just used to boil water in and you'll likely give yourself a second (or third) degree burn. Take an egg out of that boiling water, dry it off, and it won't burn you.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:17, Blogger spoonfed said...

Spoonfed,

In your expert opinion, why did we see the outter columns of the WTC bend inward on 9/11 before the collapse?


I'm not an expert, thank you.

The buildings did fail, as we all know. Why is the question here.

NIST claims the inward pull of the outward columns lead to the collapse. Or at least to the initiation of the collapse. Fine. Ok. I don't have a problem with that. Just show me a model of how this failure over a few floors leads to a complete global collapse, including the failure of the core columns. And the progressive collapse scenarion does not do this.

I'm not here talking about hijackers and bombs, etc. I'm a reasonable person. Just show me a physics modeling of complete collapse.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:59, Blogger Alex said...

I'm a reasonable person.

No, you're not. Your continued insistence on "global collapse modelling" is ridiculous. Your fixation on it is nothing short of psychotic. We've already taken the time to explain to you why such a model is irrelevant, yet you continue to ask about it. You do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?

 
At 22 March, 2007 13:54, Blogger spoonfed said...

Alex said...

No, you're not. Your continued insistence on "global collapse modelling" is ridiculous. Your fixation on it is nothing short of psychotic. We've already taken the time to explain to you why such a model is irrelevant, yet you continue to ask about it. You do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?


More ad hominem attacks without addressing the question. And now I'm insane because I've exposed a flaw in the science you profess to be bulletproof.

You say modeling a global collapse is irrelevant?

I guess science has no place in a faith-based world like yours. Wait a minute -- wasn't someone here talking about creationists ?

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:17, Blogger Alex said...

More ad hominem attacks without addressing the question.

No, just an accurate assessment of your mental faculties, AFTER addressing the question.

And now I'm insane because I've exposed a flaw in the science you profess to be bulletproof.

See what I mean?

You say modeling a global collapse is irrelevant?

Oh wow! I guess you DID understand me when I addressed your question. Guess what that makes you? That's right, a LIAR!

I guess science has no place in a faith-based world like yours. Wait a minute -- wasn't someone here talking about creationists ?

Non-sequitor.

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:21, Blogger Alex said...

Ok, tell you what, since you're so convinced that this "global modeling" is so important, you should have no problem doing the following:

1) Explain what you expect to learn from such a model.

2) Describe which aspects of the collapse you place the greatest emphasis on.

3) Raise $10 million for the computer time, engineers, and software required to produce the study.

Once you've done all that, I'll be more than happy to get the study done for you.

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:23, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

In actuality, spoonfed, there exists no software to model a collapse of this nature. I didn't even really think of this at first until I started thinking of "how I would model it". First I'd need the structural plans (which I can't get), then I'd need about 2 years of free-time (which I don't have), and a piece of software capable of modelling this. The software doesn't exist, mainly because there exists no reason for anyone to analyze something like this. Engineers are concerned with how and where something starts to fail, not with after it's failed. I should say that we still do design to ensure ductile failures, but that's beside the point.

I'm not that familiar with SAP, which is what NIST used (it's a clunky piece of software in my opinion, those poor guys). However the little exposure I've seen it shows that it models deflection and strength and a limited degree of plastic analysis.

Risa (which I use regularly) does much the same that SAP does. As does RAM Structural, though it is less verstile than Risa or SAP but allows for changes in the model much easier, which is a great tool for iterative design. Them whacky architects always keep changing shit up until the last minute.

For example, in RISA, suppose I model a fairly simple box structure with beams at the top. Suppose those beams are undersized and fail. Risa will not take the failure past that point, and it will not even analyze the change in forces due to catenary action of a member developing plastic hinges.

The only program that I can think of that can get even close to modelling this is something called Ansys. Any one who knows what Ansys is probably shudders to think of modelling something like the WTC in it - or something a hundreth of the size of the WTC for that matter. It is a buggy piece of junk that is unforgiving to mistakes - no undo button, and sometimes you have to just start over when something goes wrong. Its GUI is DOS-bosed (if that's even really a GUI) that still relies on command-line interface. Oh, and it's a cpu-resource whore to boot. I modelled a single frame going through plastic deformation in it and it took hours to solve. Oh yea, it costs something like 60k a seat as well. But, it can do just about anything. There's a reason why structural engineers don't use it.

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:40, Blogger CHF said...

I'm not an expert, thank you.

Yeah, I figured.

NIST claims the inward pull of the outward columns lead to the collapse. Or at least to the initiation of the collapse. Fine. Ok. I don't have a problem with that.

So a demolition didn't start the collapse.

Just show me a model of how this failure over a few floors leads to a complete global collapse, including the failure of the core columns.

40,000 tons. 120,000 tons.

What do you think happens when that kind of weight starts to fall?

 
At 22 March, 2007 15:37, Blogger Stevew said...

Well put Newton
I have been a Solidworks user for the last 8 years and I am not sure if there is an addin for this or not. My point was to get a big enough computer, the right software, take the time to do the models on and on, your looking at a fortune if it exists at all.
Thats why I said "The toofers love to ask questions and make challenges they know can't be answered so they think it makes them selves look good"

I shudder at the thought of a DOS GUI

 
At 22 March, 2007 23:01, Blogger rashadsanchez said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2007 08:32, Blogger spoonfed said...

Newtons Bit said:

The only program that I can think of that can get even close to modelling this is something called Ansys. Any one who knows what Ansys is probably shudders to think of modelling something like the WTC in it - or something a hundreth of the size of the WTC for that matter. It is a buggy piece of junk that is unforgiving to mistakes - no undo button, and sometimes you have to just start over when something goes wrong. Its GUI is DOS-bosed (if that's even really a GUI) that still relies on command-line interface. Oh, and it's a cpu-resource whore to boot. I modelled a single frame going through plastic deformation in it and it took hours to solve. Oh yea, it costs something like 60k a seat as well. But, it can do just about anything. There's a reason why structural engineers don't use it.


From the Ansys.com website:

CAD System Integration
ANSYS Geometry Interfaces

With ANSYS you can use your existing native CAD geometry directly with no translations, no IGES, and no middle geometry formats. ANSYS has had native, bi-directional, integration with the most popular CAD systems for over 10 years and also provides integration directly into the CAD menu bar making it simple to launch the ANSYS world class simulation directly from your CAD system.
Parameter and Dimension Control

The ANSYS Workbench Environment uses a unique plug-in architecture to maintain associativity with the CAD systems for solid and surface models, allowing you to make design changes to your CAD model without having to reapply loads and/or supports. You can either pick the CAD dimension to change directly, or enhance your design iterations with the Parameter Manager. The ANSYS Parameter Manager in Workbench provides an easy way to set up multiple design scenarios by simply filling out the Parameter Manager spreadsheet and ANSYS will automatically update the geometry and run your muliple solutions.

ANSYS Parameter Manager

Supported CAD systems and file types:
(Select your CAD for details)
CAD System Integration

Autodesk Inventor / MDT
Autodesk Inventor Professional Stress
CATIA v4 and v5
Pro/ENGINEER
Solid Edge
SolidWorks
Unigraphics
VX Cad
Other CAD
Neutral Formats
IGES
Parasolid
SAT

Also the parameter manger is shown in a Windows XP environment -- no sign of DOS.

Do I doubt it would take time? No, but many of the parameters would be redundant, once entered.

 
At 23 March, 2007 10:22, Blogger Stevew said...

Have you ever done any modeling or used any of those pgm's?

 
At 23 March, 2007 12:46, Blogger spoonfed said...

Stevew said...

Have you ever done any modeling or used any of those pgm's?


So let me get this right...you're propagating b.s. about the Ansys program and when I show evidence of b.s. you ask for my credentials?

Right now I have more credibility than you.

 
At 23 March, 2007 13:01, Blogger Stevew said...

Why do you slime lie about everything. I asked you a simple question which went way over your head and you come back with some bull shit like you always do. It is you who have no credibility, I can back up whay I say and you can't

How am I propagating b.s. by asking you a question?

Lets try this again. Have you ever done any modeling or used any of those pgm's?

Do you know what is involved in setting up the sym?

 
At 23 March, 2007 13:07, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Oooh, it looks like Ansys is putting out updates again! I will reserve my opinion on that until I actually get to use it (not going to happen unless I go back for my masters later). I think I was using Ansys 9 for my undergrad. It was awesome in what it could do, but it was not pleasant in doing it.

As far as what is involved, you still have no idea. Just to produce the CAD documents for a building the size of the WTC would likely take upwards of a 1000 man-hours.

There's a reason why I posted Ansys, it is the best. But there is a reason why very few structural firms use it.

 
At 23 March, 2007 13:17, Blogger Stevew said...

Precisely why I asked him the question Newton. A Solidworks model
for one of the towers would be a very large task and require huge computing power. I have a few Assy's that approach 100M and they bring my XP4000 to its knees. Something like this would take far more power than a PC

 
At 27 March, 2007 06:18, Blogger Paul said...

David Lynch would know far more about what has really happened on 9/11 than all of you twooftwits put together.
Some people are in the know through the circles they frequent, others just theorise and call people names because it doesn't fit their own view of the world.
The fact is all you know is nothing because you weren't there, but put in the same circle you may just be enlightened.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home