Thursday, March 22, 2007

No New Loose Change?


Buried in an article about Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell being nutbars is this nugget:

Sources say Sheen - whose father, Martin Sheen, has been arrested 63 times protesting on behalf of various leftist causes - is in talks with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban's Magnolia Pictures to distribute "Loose Change." Sheen has called for a new independent probe of the attack, telling Alex Jones' radio show: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen's rep confirmed his participation. Cuban e-mailed us: "We are having discussions about distributing the existing video with Charlie's involvement as a narrator, not in making a new feature. We are also looking for productions with an opposing viewpoint. We like controversial subjects, but we are agnostic to which side the controversy comes from."


It's of course interesting that Cuban is talking about distributing a "documentary" which even its creator admits does contain errors, and comes to conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts.

Update: Bill writes a few open letters here.

Labels: , ,

66 Comments:

At 22 March, 2007 09:42, Blogger spoonfed said...

What I learned in my 24 hours at “Screw Loose Change”


As far as evidence surrounding 9/11, nothing new.

As far as smear tactics, a hell of a lot.

As a matter of fact, I think I can quickly put together a guide for newcomers – maybe you can add this to the FAQ section.

“The Unofficial Screw Loose Change Handbook”

1) Attack, Attack, Attack. Anyone who is here questioning the official story is a nutbar, kook, lunatic, moonbat. If you’d like step it up with labels like Fucktard and asshat.

2) Ask for Credentials – Ask what they’re qualifications, degrees etc. that makes their opinion count against the ‘irrefutable scientific proof’. Who the hell are they to have an opinion? No need to include any citations at this time(see #9)

3) Call them a ‘Toofer’ – this works on so many levels!

4) If they don’t agree with the ‘irrefutable scientific proof’ statement, call them a ‘Creationist Kook’ or Holocaust Denier. Global Warming is big right now so ‘Global Warming Skeptic’ works too.

5) If they are persistent see #1

6) Question their Patriotism. If they don’t like the USG, tell them to leave. Real Americans don’t question the government.

7) Don’t underestimate the power of a Red Herring. If they want to talk about Global Collapse Modeling, state that this has as much to do with 9/11 as the melting point of ice cream. Ask what their favorite flavor is!

8) If the ‘toofer’ reveals personal info, use ad hominem, etc.

9) As a last resort, and only as a last resort, cite a scientific paper that may or may not have anything to do with the argument at hand. Hope the ‘toofer’ gets intimidated and does not take the time to read it.

10)Don’t forget: Attack, Attack, Attack.

Later.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:02, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Meanwhile, here's spoonfed's guide to constructing a decent argument.

1) Only say things that other people have told you. Original thought is a waste of energy. For example, if Alex Jones says 84% of people in America are 9/11 deniers, who are you to question him?

2) Blame other people for your own faults. I'm thinking that if you spend all your time spouting off idiotic slogans and as hominems while consistently ignoring every serious question asked of you, you should accuse everyone else of doing that.

3) Always change the subject.

4) Hey, did anyone see American Idol last night?

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:04, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

5) Almost forgot - spam, spam, spam! The more consecutive posts you have, the more credible and serious they look!

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:05, Blogger spoonfed said...

Actually DBS, I posed two serious questions yesterday-- no one has been able to address them.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:10, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Are you talking about the ones on the 'Celebrity Deniers' thread? There have been a lot of people answering your global collapse question - the fact that you don't like the answers is irrelevant to whether they've been answered or not.

As for your perception that 9/11 denial is on the rise, show me proof. All you've got is Alex Jones's long-debunked 84% cite and meaningless circumstantial evidence like "all my friends believe it". To which I gave a perfectly viable answer - maybe all your friends are a bit thick?

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:22, Blogger Manny said...

"We are having discussions about distributing the existing video with Charlie's involvement as a narrator, not in making a new feature."

Meh. I'm sure that to a real movie company there's pretty much no distinction between LC2E and LCFC -- I still believe that do-over will have done LC over before it gets into anyone's hands.

What's more interesting is that a guy like Cuban is even marginally interested in something like this.

"We like controversial subjects, but we are agnostic to which side the controversy comes from."

What that is is bullshit, right there. Cuban's company wouldn't, in a million years, make a holocaust denial film and say that they like controversy and are agnostic as to which side the controversy comes from. They might want to make a civil war film from the perspective of the South, but you know that even then they'd portray slavery as a dying and morally wrong institution and the war as being over states' rights -- they'd never make a pro-slavery film and say they're agnostic.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:32, Blogger BG said...

Open Letters to the Makers of Loose Change and Related Parties

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:36, Blogger CHF said...

spoonfed,

2) Ask for Credentials – Ask what they’re qualifications, degrees etc. that makes their opinion count against the ‘irrefutable scientific proof’.

GASP! How dare we ask for education and degrees! I mean who needs schooling to understand buildings, right?

Let's not forget the #1 twoofer tactic which you kooks demonstrate daily:

Argue from a position of ignorance.

This is when you claim or imply that the structural engineers and demolition experts of the world are clueless while YOU (with no such training) have figured out the truth simply by watching youtube clips and listening to Alex Jones.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:40, Blogger spoonfed said...

DBS -- I don't necessarily believe or not believe the 84% statistic. I think that is probably misleading. Many of those may have doubts but does not mean they believe government complicity.

I do believe -- and quoted that 16% believe the official story and do not have questions about the events that day. I would even go as far to say from reading comments here that some of you do not fall in this category.

When I say no one I know buys the official story -that does not mean they all believe the USG did it(MIHOP). Some do. But it means they realize many questions have not been answered. And they see things like Hamilton and Kean admitting a whitewash, McCleland etc. They smell a serious rat.

My assertion is simple -- if your site and Popular Mechanics do a proper job of answering the questions surrounding 9/11, then why isn't this whole 'toofer' mess a thing of the past? Why is it growing? Why are more and more people coming forward doubting the official story?

And no one can give me a model for Global Collapse of 1&2. Because it doesn't exist. Jay's link does not address it. I commented on it.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:53, Blogger spoonfed said...

This is when you claim or imply that the structural engineers and demolition experts of the world are clueless while YOU (with no such training) have figured out the truth simply by watching youtube clips and listening to Alex Jones.

Show me where I say any of those things you state. The ommission of a global collapse model is what I'm questioning. I've been very specific in my questions.

You're confusing me with someone else.

And don't try to tell me that I'm not allowed to have an opinion because I'm not a structural engineer. That may work on more timid folks but not me. It's just an initimidation game.

And why the ill feelings? I just gave you guys a tact sheet!

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:59, Blogger CHF said...

The ommission of a global collapse model is what I'm questioning.

Oh boy - another "they didn't model the collapse" twoofer.

There's a reason why the collapse itself wasn't modelled: IT'S POINTLESS!

It's just like how plane crash investigators will figure out WHY the plane crashed and at what angle, but they won't waste their time looking into what happened to the plane when it hit the ground.

To the pros, such issues are pretty obvious.

In the case of the WTC towers, engineers don't find it the least bit odd that 120,000 tons of dynamic load would smash through the building with ease.

The fact that YOU have a problem with it, is not NIST's concern.

Engineering reports are done for the benefit of engineers - not conspiracy kooks.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:03, Blogger texasjack said...

"Why is it growing? Why are more and more people coming forward doubting the official story?"

Why is it that this trooth conferences only attracting a few hundred people? Where are the massive protests? Why is traffic so low on troother websites? You call that growing?

What people coming forward? You mean celebrities? Who cares. Where are the structural engineers? Where are your experts? Why after 5 1/2 years you can't get one person out of the thousands that would have to be in on the plot to clear their conscience? Why can't you get one reporter in the world to crack the case?

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:23, Blogger Stevew said...

sponey
You talk about PM yet offer only opinion to support your claims.
How about a point by point rebuttle to back up your claims and back it up with experts in the relivent fields?

You can have an opinion but that is all you have and is based on nothing more than what you have been spoonfed by the toofers.
Opinions are just that and yours have no basis in fact.
If you could provide some hard facts to back up the claims that you make, people here would be glad to listen.
Why don't you provide a list of qualified experts that agree with you ?

We have to find a supercomputer, software and someone who knows how to use it. The toofers love to ask questions and make challenges they know can't be answered so they think it makes them selves look good, so spooney why don't you give us a list of what is needed to do this Global Collapse so we can make sure it meets your requirements

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:44, Blogger spoonfed said...

sponey
You talk about PM yet offer only opinion to support your claims.
How about a point by point rebuttle to back up your claims and back it up with experts in the relivent fields?


What 'claims' have I made? I'm here asking questions. You guys must be following a script because you keep talking the same shit and it doesn't apply to anything I've said here.

The toofers love to ask questions and make challenges they know can't be answered so they think it makes them selves look good

So you admit that the global collapse question can't be answered? I give you credit for being honest about it.

spooney why don't you give us a list of what is needed to do this Global Collapse so we can make sure it meets your requirements

It's pretty simple. See i want the whole picture -- just give me a physics model that explains and matches the physical evidence of the WTC 1&2 collapses. This means:

a) After the initiation of collapse show the continued failure of all structures within the towers including the central core columns.

b) Match all the known factors such as time scale, expelled steel members, pulverization of concrete structures, etc. Nothing controversial here.

If this is obvious like CHF states(
"To the pros, such issues are pretty obvious"), someone should be able to put this together easily.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:48, Blogger Alex said...

CHF:

There's a reason why the collapse itself wasn't modelled: IT'S POINTLESS!

That's what several of us have been trying to tell him for the last 24 hours. He just doesn't get it. Watch, in his next post he'll once again be whining that nobody is providing him with a global model.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:50, Blogger Alex said...

Damn, he beat me to it!

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

Alex said...

There's a reason why the collapse itself wasn't modelled: IT'S POINTLESS!


Sorry, your stakes on being 'scientific' are flying out the window with statements like that.

How many steel structured skyscrapes have completely collapsed? Don't ya think it might be useful to model it?

This is exactly why people continue to have questions about 9/11.

Go ahead and accept the challenge -- any takers?

 
At 22 March, 2007 12:03, Blogger Alex said...

Sorry, your stakes on being 'scientific' are flying out the window with statements like that.

Maybe in your eyes. The engineers seem to agree with me though, so I really don't care what you think of my scientific ability.

How many steel structured skyscrapes have completely collapsed?

How many have suffered that type of damage?

Don't ya think it might be useful to model it?

Nope.

This is exactly why people continue to have questions about 9/11.

Yes, because they're stupid, and fixated on nonsensical ideas.

Go ahead and accept the challenge -- any takers?

You still haven't actually created a challenge.

 
At 22 March, 2007 12:13, Blogger CHF said...

OK spoonfed,

here's an explanation of the collapse itself:

The falling mass struck the 78th floor which gave way.

Then the falling mass struck the 77th floor which also gave way.

Then came the 76th floor, which also couldn't hold up the weight.

After that was the 75th floor, which - surprise, surprise - ALSO couldn't hold up the mass.

Then there was the 74th floor which....well, you get the picture.

Now do you see why engineers don't waste their time typing this stuff out for the benfit of twoofers like you?

So now that you understand (I hope!) that each floor was not designed to support the falling dynamic load and thus gave way under the weight....explain to me what is gained from such a model.

That's right: SWEET FUCK ALL!

 
At 22 March, 2007 12:18, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

^ that's actually a pretty good "simple model" for a way that the towers may have collapsed. I say "a way" because there's so many unknowns and so many factors that one would have to employ chaos theory to really see the whole thing.

The level of engineering topics in that is just above my level so I struggle at some points in the article. The fact that they're using THE METRIC SYSTEM doesn't help things out much either. Use British Imperial like real engineers damnit!

 
At 22 March, 2007 12:19, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

and, because blogspot likes to hack up links:

www.civil.northwestern.edu/people
/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

 
At 22 March, 2007 12:32, Blogger Stevew said...

No script we just want you to stop tapdanceing and answer the questions that we have a right to ask. Of course you make claims just look at your posts, I am not going to do your work for you your tapdanceing will not work.


We have to find a supercomputer, software and someone who knows how to use it.

You need to be a little more specific. What type of computer, software. Do you know someone who can do the sym?

Have you ever done any modeling?

Can you give me the name of a building that has been built like the towers?

Can you show me the benchmarks for buildings destroyed like this?

 
At 22 March, 2007 12:33, Blogger Pat said...

Spoonfed, if you want to see us in substantive debunking mode, check back in the archives for May, June & July of last year. There's nothing new under the sun with the Deniers, so we're coasting and reporting "news" as it happens. I imagine the next real work we'll do will be Griffin's new book.

 
At 22 March, 2007 12:49, Blogger Alex said...

His name says it all. Like the majority of deniers, he demands to be spoon-fed. God forbid he actually do some research on his own.

 
At 22 March, 2007 13:20, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"My assertion is simple -- if your site and Popular Mechanics do a proper job of answering the questions surrounding 9/11, then why isn't this whole 'toofer' mess a thing of the past?"

Because some lack the intelligence to understand some of the concepts the scientist are trying to convey. Or they understand but are blind to an "inconvenient truth"

And the state of scientific aptitude is embarrassingly low in this country.

So How far do we have to dumb down the explanation on how the planes impacts and fire cause the structural failures we all saw that day? I have no problem understanding this stuff, so why can't you?

Maybe the problem in the accepted explanation in not in the explanation, but in YOUR ability to understand it.

Was that simple enough for you, or do I have to draw you a picture?

 
At 22 March, 2007 13:29, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Engineering reports are done for the benefit of engineers - not conspiracy kooks."

But conspiracy theorist want nice pictures and 3D animated models, If they don't get that, then it did not happen. Thes people lack the imagination to visualize in their heads how it could have happened.

They need ideas "SPOONFED" to them in simple childlike ways, lets face it we are dealing with children here. But daddy..... WHY?......

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:15, Blogger CHF said...

But conspiracy theorist want nice pictures and 3D animated models, If they don't get that, then it did not happen.

Indeed.

Their main gripe against NIST seems to be "it isn't on youtube!"

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:33, Blogger spoonfed said...

Pat said...

Spoonfed, if you want to see us in substantive debunking mode, check back in the archives for May, June & July of last year. There's nothing new under the sun with the Deniers, so we're coasting and reporting "news" as it happens. I imagine the next real work we'll do will be Griffin's new book.


Pat -- I didn't come here to hijack your threads, honestly. Maybe you can look at my visit here as a very small preview of some of the questions you will be faced with in the near future. There's a literal shitstorm brewing, I think you know.

Personally, I don't really care to argue about the hijackers(like Atta), or the hole in the Pentagon, or even building 7. That stuff is all self-evident.

To repeat again, the weakest part of the NIST report and the 'no explosives argument' is the failure to explain the global collapses of 1&2 and the failure of the central core columns. This is front and center for me -- in case you didn't notice.

Explain it and I think many people will be willing to write off this 9/11 truth stuff as kookery, maybe even myself included.

Without an explanation, I think you have a serious problem on your hands in terms of defending the official story.

This single issue is where science can prove once and for all that explosives were not necessary for the collapses to occur the way they did. And the hinge pin of the 9/11 controlled demolition theories will die once and for all.

I do look forward to your new work. Interesting how you are the only one here not attacking me.

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:36, Blogger CHF said...

Spoonfed, I explained the collapse to you.

Where exactly did you get lost?

Was it the part where the 76th floor gave way or the 75th?

 
At 22 March, 2007 15:06, Blogger Stevew said...

Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks.
He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further. [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]
The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.
In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” [Robertson, 3/2002] The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [Scientific American, 10/9/2001; New Yorker, 11/19/2001] The towers were hit with approx 5x and 9x the force
they were desighed for

 
At 22 March, 2007 17:39, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Attack, Attack, Attack

You pathetic assholes accuse others of perpetrating mass murder ON NO EVIDENCE whatsoever and you are upset with a few insults. Grow up, buddy. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Maybe scumguzzling, drug addict, wife beater and pervert Charlie Sheen will give will a lecture on upstanding citizenship then deport himself to another country since he hates the one that has given him so much.

 
At 22 March, 2007 18:12, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Someone could always start a rumor that the Jews got Charlie Sheen where he is today, just to discredit the Truth Movement.

After all, everyone knows the Jews control Hollywood. That would make Sheen one of their "assets". *cough*

 
At 22 March, 2007 23:05, Blogger Richard said...

And no one can give me a model for Global Collapse of 1&2. Because it doesn't exist. Jay's link does not address it. I commented on it.

Actually the link does address it. If you read it you would have seen it. Here it is again:

"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.


There is no model because there is no point in having one. I gave a detailed explanation to you including key points from the paper. You said you read it yet you still ask questions that were already answered.

HERE IS YOUR ANSWER AGAIN
| |
V V

Warning science content!:

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.

Super dumbed-down version:

Lets say that all of the floors above the impact point have a combined "falling" power of 10. The only way that it can be stopped is if the floor under it had a "resistance" power of 11. Each floor was only designed to hold its weigh plus equipment, people, safety margins etc. This means that every floor only had a power of, lets say 2. The collapse would go something like this

10 > 2 = The floor gives way.

Now we have the mass of all of the floors above the impact point plus the first floor under it. This now makes the "falling" power 11. However since each individual floor was only designed to hold its self up, the next floor down still has a power of 2. This makes the next floor collapse look like this:

11 > 2 = collapse.

Do you see the pattern? As each floor falls it adds to the mass of the falling body. The force generated by this mass is so great that it overpowers what little resistance the floors under it give. That is why there is no model of the global collapse. BASIC physics shows that if you know the mass of the floors(which we do) and the resistance capabilities of the floors underneath(which we do) then it becomes obvious that its just going to continue to collapse.

It is true that there is always information to be learned from global collapses but to model the collapse of the WTC is pointless. Because of the extreme complexity of the variables that would have to be accounted for and the fact that all we have to work with is video and still pictures we would have no real way of making sure it was accurate. Now, don't spin this the wrong way. It would be damn close and it would not poke holes in the understanding of the collapse. Engineers time could be better spent monitoring collapses in a controlled manner. That way we know the variables and were ready to take in the information. The paper even mentioned this idea( I thought you read it?)

But a theoretical or computational prediction of Fc is extremely difficult and fraught
with uncertainty. Precise collapse observations are required. Eqs. (12) and (17) show that Fc(z) can be evaluated from the monitoring of motion history z(t) and y(t), provided that ¹(z) and ¸(z) are known. Such information can, in theory, be extracted from a high-speed camera record of the collapse. Approximate information could have been extracted from a regular video of collapse if the moving part of the towers of WTC were not shrouded in a cloud of dust and smoke. Thus, despite thousands of photographic
records, nothing can be learned from WTC.


However, valuable information on the energy dissipation capability of various types of structural systems could be extracted by monitoring demolitions. During the initial period of demolition, the precise history of motion of building top could be determined from a video of
collapse. After the whole building disappears in dust cloud, various remote sensing techniques
could be used. For example, one could follow through the dust cloud the motion of sacrificial radio transmitters. Or one could install sacrificial accelerometers monitored by real-time telemetry. From the acceleration record, the y(t)-history could be integrated.
Therefore, monitoring of demolitions is proposed as a means of learning about the energy
absorption capability of various structural systems.

 
At 23 March, 2007 07:45, Blogger spoonfed said...

Richard said...

Actually the link does address it. If you read it you would have seen it. Here it is again: (snipped)


I did read it. It explains the feasibility of a progressive collapse scenario. I got it.

One could argue that these collapses did not resemble a progressive collapse as known to occur previously, but I'm not even debating that. Let's just say it was a progressive collapse.

My point is that this paper and other research does not address the failure of the central core columns. Period. Show me where we have an explanation for the failure of the vertical core columns.

I can believe that horizontal weight bearing support was stressed and that localized inward thrusting from the perimeter columns could therefore occur, as NIST stated.

This obviously is the official explanation for the cause of the initiation of collapse. However what is not addressed is that we had massive and complete failure of the vertical core columns.

This is a problem. A huge problem.

As we know, vertical structures do not load the same as horizontal -- I know this much from basic home improvement 101.

 
At 23 March, 2007 08:12, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

The core columns failed for two reasons, first and foremost is stress redistribution from the buckling of the outer columns. The load was then transfered to the core columns and the other remaining outer columns. The second is that the columns were gradually heated up by the fire such that they lost more and more strength over time. Eventually they gave way as well.

One of the problems that the columns faced was that, structurally, they were getting longer. The spacing in between bracing of a column (such as by a beam or a joist) is called it's unbraced length. As the floor joists failed and began sagging, the unbraced length of many core columns likely increased. I cannot show direct evidence of this happening at core columns, but it is obvious that it is happening at exterior columns as seen by Fig 2-40 to 2-42 of NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps

This is not a complicated concept. Especially when one consideres that the core columns themselves were damaged and some were completly destroyed. There just wasn't enough structural integrity left to hold the building up for very long.

 
At 23 March, 2007 08:30, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"To repeat again, the weakest part of the NIST report and the 'no explosives argument' is the failure to explain the global collapses of 1&2 and the failure of the central core columns. This is front and center for me -- in case you didn't notice."

Then why is it the center core is the last part to fall in all the videos of the collapse?

If it was cut, blown-up or melted as you guys like to insist then why do the videos clearly show a process of the outer wall failing first and the building peeling away on the outside?
This then pulls the center core down.

It,s no where near the classic controlled demolition of an inward implosion.

 
At 23 March, 2007 09:07, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

In the debate over creationism there is the concept of what is called "God of the Gaps"

Basically anything that evolution can not explain or that the creationist can not understand is a hole where the god idea is placed. The creationist then run off an say "see creation must have happen!"

Never mind the fact that the amount of proof for evolution is so great and so verifiable, from fossil records to plate tectonics to DNA. No we are to give creation equal footing NOT because it has been proved but because someone used it as a simple explanation for a minor gap in evolutionary knowlage.

For Spoonfed his inability to understand the center core issue is the gap he need to push controlled demolition. Never mind he or any of the conspiracy theorist can't show a real explanation of how this controlled demolition idea could work. And he ignores the overwhelming weight of tested and verifiable proof for the fire and airplane damage to the towers being the cause of the collapse.

Come on Spoonfed, you don't want answers, you want it to be a government plot, that is your GOD, and like most religious zealots you will never give up on god.

 
At 23 March, 2007 14:03, Blogger spoonfed said...

Newtons Bit:
The core columns failed for two reasons, first and foremost is stress redistribution from the buckling of the outer columns. The load was then transfered to the core columns and the other remaining outer columns.


This would be assuming that the fasteners attaching the trusses to the core columns did not fail before causing the core columns to fail. The progressive collapse scenario depends on failure of these fasteners, correct?

The second is that the columns were gradually heated up by the fire such that they lost more and more strength over time. Eventually they gave way as well.

The only core columns that were heated up and would be subjected to weakening by fire were those where the fire was burning intensely, i.e. a few floors.

As the floor joists failed and began sagging, the unbraced length of many core columns likely increased. I cannot show direct evidence of this happening at core columns, but it is obvious that it is happening at exterior columns as seen by Fig 2-40 to 2-42 of NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps

I think we can agree that saying that the outer columns and core columns were structurally different is an understatement. This would be a big assumption that they should behave similarly.

Especially when one consideres that the core columns themselves were damaged and some were completly destroyed. There just wasn't enough structural integrity left to hold the building up for very long.

Again, your statement is slanted. The impact and fire affected a very small percentage of the actual structure. You make it sound as if the fire and impact weakened all the steel in the building.

 
At 23 March, 2007 14:13, Blogger CHF said...

This obviously is the official explanation for the cause of the initiation of collapse. However what is not addressed is that we had massive and complete failure of the vertical core columns.

This is a problem. A huge problem.


Not according to engineers it isn't.

In case you haven't seen any clips of the collapses, large beams from the inner core did remain standing for a few seconds after the collapses.

 
At 23 March, 2007 14:37, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Spoonfed you don't really have a clue as to what I'm saying and you have a misguided view of how buildings work. I don't think I'm ever going to be able to change your opinion because you're basing your arguments that something is true, rather than it is a hypothesis. You're not looking to find information, you're looking for validation on a belief. You have zero engineering evidence to back you up and you never will.


This would be assuming that the fasteners attaching the trusses to the core columns did not fail before causing the core columns to fail. The progressive collapse scenario depends on failure of these fasteners, correct?


Yes, and no. FEMA demonstrates a scenario where the joists push outwards as they're heated and pop their fasteners off and then slip off. NIST does not show the same thing and it's obvious why if you looked at the figures I posted above. Something tells me you didn't even bother looking. I could be wrong on that however.


I think we can agree that saying that the outer columns and core columns were structurally different is an understatement. This would be a big assumption that they should behave similarly.


I did not explain unbraced length very well and that is my fault. However, the unbraced length is directly proportional to the compressive capacity of the column. When that unbraced length goes up, you get less juice out of a compression member. If the floor joists are still connected to the columns, but are sagging, the columns are no longer braced by them. If the connections between joist and column fail, they are no longer braced by them. Either way you look at it, the columns lost strength. Alot.

And no, the columns were not structurally that different. The interior columns were made up of both wide flanges and built-up box columns. The box columns are almost identical to the exterior columns except for the dimensions. Secondly, the wide flanges will be much stronger to any lateral forces the joists may be inducing on them if it is oriented in the strong axis of the wide flange, if the joist is tugging on the weak-axis, the box column is likely stronger.

All steel has the same behavior, and I'm not analyzing them the same way. I'm analyzing their behavior the same. If the joists are sagging on an exterior column, it makes sense that it is doing likewise on the interior. This is going to reduce the strength of those columns.



Again, your statement is slanted. The impact and fire affected a very small percentage of the actual structure. You make it sound as if the fire and impact weakened all the steel in the building.


By this statement, if I were to, somehow, somewhere, find a way to magically teleport all of the steel out of one floor of a building, it shouldn't make a big difference to the integrity of the structure because I'm only affecting less than 1% of the steel in the building. Now this is a far-fetched analogy, but it holds true:the building is only as strong as the weakest link. If a column fails on the 80th floor, that column line all the way up to the 100th floor just became a floating mass. Unless there is a system in place to redistribute that weight (which in the WTC there was) the building will immediately begin to accelerate. In engineering terms: "oh shit!" Let me reiterate, the fire weakened the columns on a few floors, but those weakened columns were holding up many floors, when those columns fail, there is nothing left to hold up the structure above it. I do not see how this can be complicated. There is no such thing as structural air. If one floor of columns fails, THE WHOLE BUILDING FAILS.

Use your brain, try to see how the building DID fail rather than how you can use semantics to say it couldn't possibly fail that way. OPEN YOUR EYES.

 
At 23 March, 2007 16:10, Blogger Alex said...

Newton:

I did not explain unbraced length very well and that is my fault.

Since these fools don't seem to understand anything if it's not in video format, you can always point them here for an explanation of unbraced length.

 
At 23 March, 2007 17:00, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

That's a pretty good demonstration right there Alex.

 
At 23 March, 2007 17:14, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Hmm. You lot don't seem to be very happy over here. Perhaps it's raining where you're at too. I mean, there's two new CHEERFUL comments forums but you'd prefer to scowl and pout over a "twoofer" who's not posted for at least three hours. Well, that won't do:


Raindrops keep fallin on my head...

And just like the guy whose feet
are too big for his bed;

Nothing seems to fit...

Those raindrops keep fallin on my head, they keep fallin...

 
At 23 March, 2007 17:18, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

It is raining where I'm at.

And I have stomach spasms.

And the name Jenny resonates poorly with me right now.

WHY GOD WHY?

etc etc

And what does spoonfed's interval of posting have anything to do with anything? We're not communicating over the phone, the idea is to leave messages so the other person can get them later.

 
At 23 March, 2007 17:23, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

So I just did me some talking to the sun,

(come on, you lot--this blog could use some theme music)

And I said I didn't like the
way, he got things done...

sleeping on the job...

those raindrops keep fallin on my head, they keep falling...

 
At 23 March, 2007 17:52, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Theme Song eh? can we use "End of All Hope" by Nightwish?

 
At 23 March, 2007 18:00, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Theme Song eh? can we use "End of All Hope" by Nightwish?

Maybe next time.. and try to stay in tune, love:


But there's one thing I know:

Those blues they send to meet me won't
defeat me,

It won't be long till happiness steps in to greet me...

 
At 23 March, 2007 18:15, Blogger Homer Simpson said...

I guess we can safely say that this Jenny bird is posting from some sort of psychiatric institution now.

At least she's not embarassing herself with her lack of knowledge anymore - just stick to the songs love, they're the most accurate things you've ever posted.

 
At 23 March, 2007 18:59, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Raindrops keep fallin on my head,

But that doesn't mean my eyes will
soon be turning red,

Crying's not for me cause

I'm never gonna stop the rainin...by complaining...

Because I'm free...

Nothing's worrying me.


A big hand to everyone who sang along...and a big raspberry to all the sour pusses....

*cough--homersimpson*

...out there.


Say what you want, but you're feeling cherry now, aren't you?

We should do this again sometime--nice little cherry sing-a-long--to remind you lot you can be human....;-)

 
At 23 March, 2007 19:43, Blogger Alex said...

I guess we can safely say that this Jenny bird is posting from some sort of psychiatric institution now.

Naw. True lunatics are generally either scary or amusing. She's just irrelevant.

 
At 23 March, 2007 20:32, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Alex: you're so dishy when you're dismissive. Woof, woof!

(I heard some where you ARE a pretty boy--since you never answered that question, I had to check around)

Be seeing you...

 
At 24 March, 2007 09:04, Blogger spoonfed said...

Newtons Bit said...
By this statement, if I were to, somehow, somewhere, find a way to magically teleport all of the steel out of one floor of a building, it shouldn't make a big difference to the integrity of the structure because I'm only affecting less than 1% of the steel in the building. Now this is a far-fetched analogy, but it holds true:the building is only as strong as the weakest link. If a column fails on the 80th floor, that column line all the way up to the 100th floor just became a floating mass. Unless there is a system in place to redistribute that weight (which in the WTC there was) the building will immediately begin to accelerate. In engineering terms: "oh shit!" Let me reiterate, the fire weakened the columns on a few floors, but those weakened columns were holding up many floors, when those columns fail, there is nothing left to hold up the structure above it. I do not see how this can be complicated. There is no such thing as structural air. If one floor of columns fails, THE WHOLE BUILDING FAILS.


And by this statement, if one were in the controlled demolition business all you would need to do to bring a building down is rig a few mid-to-upper level floors and blow out a few columns to have a successful, complete and global collapse.

This is not the case. There have been instances of partial collapse of floors w/o a global collapse. WTC 1&2 were the exception. The damage was not symmetrical and the fires certainly weren't but we saw symmetrical failure which lead to global collapse. Therefore you will have to show that the integrity of the remaining structure will fail symmetrically and completely.

This is why no one can or will model it -- it is an impossible scenario based on the factors of a small zone of impact and fire damage.

 
At 24 March, 2007 17:26, Blogger Alex said...

You do realize that you're trying to teach a structural engineer about how buildings work, don't you?

What do you do for an encore? Give Neil Armstrong tips about how he should have walked on the moon?

 
At 24 March, 2007 18:05, Blogger Thomas said...

I'm here asking questions.

Haven't heard that one before...

 
At 24 March, 2007 22:30, Blogger Richard said...

if one were in the controlled demolition business all you would need to do to bring a building down is rig a few mid-to-upper level floors and blow out a few columns to have a successful, complete and global collapse.

True it would be successful, but it would be messy. The whole point of a controlled demolition is the "controlled" part. Just rigging a building to come down could be very dangerous to people as well as adjacent buildings.

There have been instances of partial collapse of floors w/o a global collapse. WTC 1&2 were the exception.

True, but you are making the same mistake as your peers. NOT ALL BUILDINGS ARE BUILT THE SAME WAY. You have to look at the materials used and the design of the building before making any assessments. The Twin Towers were of a unique design so to compare them at face value to any other building would be an exercise in futility.

The damage was not symmetrical and the fires certainly weren't but we saw symmetrical failure which lead to global collapse. Therefore you will have to show that the integrity of the remaining structure will fail symmetrically and completely.

If you had bothered to even read the report or the posts that I've made then you would have your answers already. You keep saying that you read it, yet you ask questions that have been answered. So, either

a) your not reading either the report or what I type

b) you are, but your to stupid to understand

I will once again post the details of the 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.


OK, so at this point we have established that the damages were indeed not symmetrical.

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.


Translation: The already stressed steel, as caused by load redistribution, is getting weaker because of the fire. As the fire gets hotter the steel will deform similar to a blacksmith hammering hot iron.

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.

Now the sagging trusses are pulling in on the columns making the structure weaker. Think of a soda can. If you place it vertically on the ground and slowly step on it, its rigidity will keep it from crushing. Put a small dent in that can and try it again and you will see that the can crushes from the weight of your body.

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.


So the end product of all of that deformation and weakening was the collapse of the building. You ask how asymmetrical damage leads to a symmetrical collapse. The answer has been given to you again. Yet I'll be fair and break it down for you. Image that there is an elevated square platform that is held up with a post at all four corners. If you remove three that is asymmetrical damage. What would happen after that? The platform would collapse. Unless you somehow expect that fourth support to magically hold up the whole platform. That is precisely how asymmetrical damage to a structure causes a symmetrical collapse. It's so obvious that it amazes me that people question it. Do you honestly expect some random column on the 78th floor of tower 1 to hold the whole thing up? When you think about it, it's ridiculous. The model by NIST that leads up to collapse shows it. If you can't see it, or gather it from the information given to you then your shit out of luck.

This is why no one can or will model it -- it is an impossible scenario based on the factors of a small zone of impact and fire damage.

It's not impossible, its totally obvious. Got some money? Go to Home Depot, get some 2x4's, joists, screws, and some plywood sheets. Make a platform, stick some weight on it and hack off a few legs.

 
At 25 March, 2007 05:30, Blogger Stevew said...

Richard
It has been explained over and over to him. You are trying to explain to a tree stump :)

 
At 25 March, 2007 11:16, Blogger Alex said...

To be fair, the platform wouldn't collapse "symmetrically", it would fall over to the side. That's why it's so hard for him to visualize why the WTC would collapse straight down - because he can't grasp the scale and the forces that were at work there.

 
At 25 March, 2007 11:46, Blogger Richard said...

I was just really REALLY trying to dumb it down for him. If he can't get it now then it sucks for him I guess.

 
At 25 March, 2007 13:12, Blogger Stevew said...

People like him will never get it, the only thing they are good for is tapdance, spin and lies

 
At 25 March, 2007 19:09, Blogger spoonfed said...

Show me an account for the failure of the central core columns. The reports you cite do not.

Do not tell me they do. They do not.

They give a scenario for initiation of a progressive collapse but fail to explain the failure of the central core columns at or below the impact and fire.

 
At 25 March, 2007 20:09, Blogger Triterope said...

Show me the proof that two plus two doesn't equal five.

Don't tell me two plus two is four. It's not.

 
At 25 March, 2007 21:53, Blogger Richard said...

Show me an account for the failure of the central core columns. The reports you cite do not.


Well actually, it does. Remember what I said before about the platform? Take 3 away and what happens?. If you remove enough supports in a structure then eventually it will collapse, regardless of the condition of the remaining supports. You never answered my question:

Do you honestly expect a few columns here and there to hold up the whole building?

From what happened on 9/11 I think the answer is pretty obvious.

If the core of the building was not designed to stand without the support of the rest of the building then what do you think will happen when its all on its own?

The central columns failed for two main reasons:

A)They can not stand without the support of the rest of the building

B)A couple of hundred thousand tons of debris falling around you might do a little bit of damage to you.


They give a scenario for initiation of a progressive collapse but fail to explain the failure of the central core columns at or below the impact and fire.

They do actually:

THE COLLAPSE

It's like I present a 5 page engineering report about a head on collision of a car at 100mph and you say I fail to account for the damage of the front license plate holder. I'm not obligated to spell out things to you which you can gather on your own.

Maybe you should ask why hurricane studies fail to account why clothes get wet in the rain.

 
At 26 March, 2007 06:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Richard
You forgot to mention that all the girders were bolted together creating natural weak spots as well and the floors were not designed to be self standing. When their support was removed they had no choice but to fall straight down

 
At 26 March, 2007 08:52, Blogger spoonfed said...

Richard said:
Well actually, it does. Remember what I said before about the platform? Take 3 away and what happens?. If you remove enough supports in a structure then eventually it will collapse, regardless of the condition of the remaining supports.


Completely absurd analogy. I'm not going to waste my time addressing how irrelevant this is to the discussion of the twin towers.

"Regardless of the condition of the remaining supports?"

This is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

Do you honestly expect a few columns here and there to hold up the whole building?

A few columns here and there? Are you serious? It was 78 stories of structurally sound building that had not been impacted or damaged by fire.

If the core of the building was not designed to stand without the support of the rest of the building then what do you think will happen when its all on its own?

The 47 core columns which were 4 feet wide, 4 inch thick steel rated to 2700 degrees F which subsequently failed is skipped over. It's not explained.

The central columns failed for two main reasons:

A)They can not stand without the support of the rest of the building

B)A couple of hundred thousand tons of debris falling around you might do a little bit of damage to you.


There has been no scientific analysis of what exactly would happen to the core during a progressive collapse -- just an implied global failure such as in your statements.

At least be truthful in what has been scientifically addressed. We have a scenario for initiation of floor collapse which then implies global failure. Thats it.

If I'm wrong, fine. I can accept that. I'm not perfect. Show me an analysis of weight redistribution and stress upon these core columns, which did not suffer weakening from fire or impact, which will lead to 100% failure. 100% failure that follows the time scale of the progressive collapse scenario. So far no one here has.

Alot of talk about bullets and hurricanes, license plates and cars, and single story platform collapses does not cut it.

At least you guys have moved past the turkey in the oven analogy. Or maybe you haven't -- I don't know. Next time someone discusses an uncontrolled open air fire I'm sure an analogy with a controlled contained burn will come back up. Doesn't matter -- same thing, right?

You want to talk science? Show me the science.

I hope you all are ready to debunk the "Debunking the Debunkers". I honestly don't think you are.

 
At 26 March, 2007 14:26, Blogger Richard said...

Completely absurd analogy. I'm not going to waste my time addressing how irrelevant this is to the discussion of the twin towers.

They are completely relevant, nice way to tap dance around answering the question though.


A few columns here and there? Are you serious? It was 78 stories of structurally sound building that had not been impacted or damaged by fire.

True but if you had half a brain you would know that I was talking about from the impact point up. As mentioned SEVERAL times before the mass of the falling stories above was to great for the rest of the building to support. So I ask you again, do you expect a few columns here and there to support FAR FAR more than they were designed to do. My analogies were simple ways of pointing this out to you, yet you still don't get it. You want the science behind that? You supposedly just read a whole paper that spelled it out to you. If you don't understand it just admit it!


There has been no scientific analysis of what exactly would happen to the core during a progressive collapse -- just an implied global failure such as in your statements.

Actually there is, I thought you read up on this? A global failure would incorporate the core as well, seeing as how its part of the building and all. Are you sure you researched this?

It's like looking at a car accident and asking why the report failed to show how the alternator was destroyed. Your in a way asking the exact same question. The answer is:

THE CRASH



At least be truthful in what has been scientifically addressed.

At least be truthful and admit you don't have a clue about the information given to you.

If I'm wrong, fine. I can accept that. I'm not perfect.

Bullshit! No amount of evidence will ever convince you of anything because you already have a preconceived notion of what happened. I think that's pretty obvious by now.



Show me an analysis of weight redistribution and stress upon these core columns, which did not suffer weakening from fire or impact, which will lead to 100% failure. 100% failure that follows the time scale of the progressive collapse scenario. So far no one here has.


Well aside from that engineering report that spelled everything out and included formulas for you to check yourself, then yeah I guess no one has.

A lot of talk about bullets and hurricanes, license plates and cars, and single story platform collapses does not cut it.

Well maybe if you stopped asking stupid, pointless questions I wouldn't have to explain things to you like you were as child.

You want to talk science? Show me the science.

Did you not read the report? Do you even know the definition of science? So far you have failed to even grasp the most basic of analogies. What incentive is there for me to spell out something to you if your not willing to even hear it?


I figured you would have mentioned it already seeing as how your a competent researcher who fully understands the science but if you still want your answers then I highly recommend reading the NIST report. I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thing, though I would still recommend that. Anyways, start reading up on NIST NCSTAR 1-6 D Chapter 3 Section 3.

Though you knew that already, right?

 
At 26 March, 2007 17:08, Blogger Stevew said...

Richard
Those reports need pictures for the big words so he might understand

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home