Remembering 9/11

[eznutz]

Says a guy who relies on self-contradictory conspiracy blogs.

You claimed to be a follower of science and math. If you are you should be able to put forward an alternate theory to be examined about how the buildings were brought down that better matches the observed data.

What is the observed data in your opinion?

That 767's flew into the top portion of a 3 part structure and the buildings fell in about 15 seconds, with zero resistance from 75+ undamaged floors connected to 48 box columns within a 80' x 140' core structure, after burning for an hour above the 78th floor (or 1.5 hours above the 92nd).

How about you explain how 75+ floors disappear and offer zero resistance on the way down, considering the burning top weighed less then the undamaged bottom?

 

[eznutz]

There is no other way for a tower to collapse. This comment reveals EXTREME ignorance on your part.



There's no reason to think so, this is just more of your EXTREME ignorance.

Once a falling mass has enough inertia to smash through a floor it picks up inertia EXPONENTIALLY. Meaning that after falling one or two floors it has so much energy that any resistance is negligible versus the force.

It's hitting subsequent floors with many TIMES the energy it hit the first floor, after a few floors the resistance of the building below it is insignificant compared to the energy of the falling mass.

Not only does the falling mass increase with the addition of each collapsed floors mass, but the velocity at which the mass is falling accelerates. With each floor it falls through its energy MULTIPLIES further.


This is basic physics.

The rest of your post is based on your failure to understand how gravity and inertia work.

I guess it's news to you that Bazant's work has already been thoroughly discredited and he's the only physicist that comes to the same conclusion as you.
You should start doing some research instead of relying on a paper written 2 days after the collapse and paid for by the Dept. of Transportation

 

[basketcase]

What is the observed data in your opinion?

That 767's flew into the top portion of a 3 part structure and the buildings

True.

fell in about 15 seconds,

Collapse times have to be estimates because the dust and debris prevent seeing the full collapse.

with zero resistance

Absolute shit. Clearly shows you have no understanding of momentum, energy, or the structure of the building.

Each individual floor would provide little resistance as the accelerating mass above it hit and then the entire body would continue accelerating. As the collapsing mass increases, the mass of the intact floors would have less impact.

But of course that is extremely simplistic treating the building as a bunch of coherent masses. In reality as the pieces of the external structure fell away from the structure the sheared the connecting pins holding the floors below meaning the ability of lower floors to resist anything would be severely diminished. Much of the lower floors would have been started falling shortly before the mass above impacted it. The only thing that would be able to provide any resistance would be the core but even that was not a solid object but a whole bunch of interconnected pieces that failed sequentially.

 

[fuji]

I guess it's news to you that Bazant's work has already been thoroughly discredited and he's the only physicist that comes to the same conclusion as you.
You should start doing some research instead of relying on a paper written 2 days after the collapse and paid for by the Dept. of Transportation

Basic physics have been proven wrong?

Hilarious.

Here's what's even more fucking funny about your insane claim: if thermite had been used to cause the collapse as you implausibly claim, the building would have fallen THE SAME WAY.

Melting the supports with thermite instead of fire wouldn't make the building fall any differently, wouldn't make the lower floors have any more or less resistance, wouldn't change the inertia of the falling mass.

Boy does that ever make your look the fool!

 

[eznutz]

Absolute shit. Clearly shows you have no understanding of momentum, energy, or the structure of the building.

Each individual floor would provide little resistance as the accelerating mass above it hit and then the entire body would continue accelerating. As the collapsing mass increases, the mass of the intact floors would have less impact.

But of course that is extremely simplistic treating the building as a bunch of coherent masses. In reality as the pieces of the external structure fell away from the structure the sheared the connecting pins holding the floors below meaning the ability of lower floors to resist anything would be severely diminished. Much of the lower floors would have been started falling shortly before the mass above impacted it. The only thing that would be able to provide any resistance would be the core but even that was not a solid object but a whole bunch of interconnected pieces that failed sequentially.

You should do a little research about Bazant's discredited paper.
http://bazantmisconduct.com/

Reading the peer reviewed work on the subject of progressive collapse reveals that there had, at that time,
only ever been one paper modelling the mechanics of the collapse of the twin towers after its initiation, a
paper called “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? – Simple Analysis” by Zdenek P. Bazant, Fellow
ASCE, and Yong Zhou (hereafter referred to as “The Paper”). Almost all other papers on the subject
reference this paper directly (including Bazant authored papers on the subject) and use the overload ratio
within as a basis for further analysis without evidence of recalculation or questioning of the assumptions. Or
they state “it has already been well established that at the moment of impact the supporting structure in the
lower section is overcome by an order of magnitude” (paraphrased) i.e. the overload ratio in The Paper is
correct in all circumstances. Therefore if The Paper supports NISTs definition then it can be assumed to be
valid and hence NISTs conclusions are valid. [NOTE: the 2007 paper authored by Seffen does propose an
alternative model for the collapse after it has begun, but still states the overload ratio is correct without
recalculation – see ‘Selected Supporting Evidence’ for details]

.....

This counter intuitive result for the south tower implies that there was considerably more structural strength in
the north tower than its overload ratio shows, possibly due to the unknown axial design load for wind
resistance. However the stiffness should also vary with height and, after a thorough search we find NISTs
elastic modulus of 206 GPa (Figure 7-1 NIST-NCSTAR 1-3 page 104) and cross section diagrams of almost
all core columns, which were extracted from data released under a freedom of information act request. Using
this data, the formula for axial stiffness and Hooke’s Laws it is possible to model each section of each column
of the core and perimeter as springs calculate the stiffness accurately (see Appendix B for details).
These more accurate calculations show the stiffness was massively overestimated in The Paper, the actual
stiffness at floor 97 (95 for simplicity) was approximately 4.4 GN/m, in the south tower at floor 80 the
stiffness was approximately 6.2 GN/m. Reading The Paper it seems the error was in assuming that the
columns didn’t reduce in mass with height.

An Independent Analysis Of NISTs Scientific Methods And Assumptions
Scott Jones BSc

Math doesn't lie, just the guy who invented his own numbers to justify a result.

 

[fuji]

You should do a little research about Bazant's discredited paper.
http://bazantmisconduct.com/



An Independent Analysis Of NISTs Scientific Methods And Assumptions
Scott Jones BSc

Math doesn't lie, just the guy who invented his own numbers to justify a result.

What's even more ludicrous than your disproven conspiracy theory is the idea that NIST is involved in a cover-up.

Oh, and Scott Jones is a crank and a quack.

 

[eznutz]

What's even more ludicrous than your disproven conspiracy theory is the idea that NIST is involved in a cover-up.

Oh, and Scott Jones is a crank and a quack.

You prove your ignorance once again

 

[fuji]

You prove your ignorance once again

Posting more nonsense from YouTube doesn't make you less wrong, doesn't alter the laws of physics, and doesn't make your insane conspiracy theory any less ludicrous.

This particular crank you linked claims to have won a debate against himself. He also has said the passengers were all paid off and are secretly living on tropical islands. He actually has no relevant background and is an outright kook.

But I'm not really surprised that you were gullible enough to believe that pile of shit.

 

[SuperCharge]

Don't believe nonsense uploaded to YouTube.

So you didn't watch the video, not even the first 2 minutes did you watch because if you had, you would have noticed the video contains world renowned architects and engineers at their conference that took place this Sept 11 2016 in New York. Try again!

And if that's not good enough http://911justiceinfocus.org/

 

[fuji]

Unlike you I don't believe any random bullshit on YouTube. I'm not a gullible fool.

Every time the 911 cranks call somebody "renowned" it towns out to be a total fraud. YouTube claiming they are renowned is bullshit. They are clueless.

 

[SuperCharge]

Unlike you I don't believe any random bullshit on YouTube. I'm not a gullible fool.

Every time the 911 cranks call somebody "renowned" it towns out to be a total fraud. YouTube claiming they are renowned is bullshit. They are clueless.

It's a conference for justice in focus. Key speakers who actually exist, except in Fujis demented world.

 

[fuji]

It's a conference for justice in motion. Key speakers who actually exist lol except in Fujis world.

In other words it's a bunch of third rate cranks getting together to discuss ludicrous quackery. And you were gullible enough to believe it...

 

[SuperCharge]

In other words it's a bunch of third rate cranks getting together to discuss ludicrous quackery. And you were gullible enough to believe it...

I suppose structural engineers who had worked on the UN building is a quack to you? And all the others? You have nothing of value to add, you have proven once again just how ignorant you are. Thanks for coming out

 

[fuji]

I suppose structural engineers who had worked on the UN building is a quack to you? And all the others? You have nothing of value to add, you have proven once again just how ignorant you are. Thanks for coming out

Yes, they are all totally refuted quacks overblowing their qualifications, backing a theory so ludicrous you wonder how many of them are skipping their medication.

On this thread you will find as clear and indisputable refutation of their claims, many of which amount to lying. See the posts above debunking the thermite claim, etc.

The NIST investigation was staffed by much more qualified people.

 

[Promo]

So you didn't watch the video, not even the first 2 minutes did you watch because if you had, you would have noticed the video contains world renowned architects and engineers at their conference that took place this Sept 11 2016 in New York. Try again!

I suppose structural engineers who had worked on the UN building is a quack to you? [/video]

Let's examine Dr Hulsey's background, shall we?

His bio from the University of Alaska: http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
His linkedin profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/j-leroy-hulsey-31141720

1) Dr Hulsey has a PHD from University of Missouri and is the Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering at University of Alaska. Clearly he's no quack, but both educational institutions are in the bottom quarter for research programs and facilities. as a low-end, poorly funded institution, do you really think he has access to the latest quality tools, research, modeling software and research students.

2) In your 9/11video his title was "Forensic Structural Engineer". Looking through his bio, can you show me any related "forensic structural" experience or credentials.

3) His awards include: UAF, Chi-Epsilon Award for Excellence in Teaching, Rocky Mountain District, 1999-2000, UMR, Outstanding Teaching Awards, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75, NCSU, Outstanding Teaching Award, 1979
None of those awards are industry related, engineering related or research related

4) Under Professional Experience, no description of his research or expertise is provided. It seems his entire career has been focused on teaching (those who can .... do, those who can't ...... teach)

5) None of his Professional Affiliations are unique. None are forensic related. None are related to a major research program or organization

6) None of his Honours are research, forensic or design related. They are friggin Fraternity related (what a joke).

7) NONE of Publications in any way qualify him as a forensic building engineer and NONE are newer than 1999. NONE! Looks as though his research carrier all happened 20-40 years ago, the man is out of date!
Wearing Surfaces for Orthotropic Steel Bridge Decks, <--- he's a pavement expert!! LOL
Household Solid Waste and Disposal Site Selection <--- he's a garbage dump expert!! LOL
Influence of Base Saturation on the Response of Rigid Pavements <--- more pavement expertise LOL
A Rational Weather Model for Highway Structures,
Cold Region Logistics Planning and Management
Temperature Distributions in Composite Bridges

8) None of his Refereed Conference Papers are forensic or building related. All are 15+ years old.
Bulb Tee Bridges: Alaska Weather and Thermal Stresses
Deck Wearing Surfaces for the Yukon River Bridge
Buried Utilities for Alaska: Dewater or Winter Work
Mechanistic Evaluation of Saturated Granular Bases in Concrete Pavements

9) His latest conference paper is 30 years old

10) His only book is 30 years old

11) His newest report is 20 years old and is cold-weather pavement related

12) His company Alignment Systems, Inc. doesn't have a web page and lists water slides as an area of focus

In summary: Dr Hulsey is a professor at a bottom tier non-research university. His expertise is in pavement surfaces and bridges. Oh, and garbage dump locations. His resume demonstrates no expertise in research, building construction or forensics, nor does it list any serious or impressive projects that he worked on. He's published nothing in the last 20-30 years. None of his associations or credentials are forensic related. Resumes, professional profiles and Linkedin profiles are supposed to to "sell you and your expertise", his are a joke!

My conclusion: Dr Hulsey has absolutely no expertise regarding forensic building collapses. His professional expertise is 20+ years out of date. His opinion on this topic has zero value. His UN job was likely no more than specifying the pavement used in the parking lot

My theory: Since 2015, Dr Hulsey has been an expert speaker for several 9/11 conferences. He gets paid to attend these conferences. Dr Hulsey is nothing more than a greedy conman milking all the gullible fools for their money by telling them want he want to hear.

 

[eznutz]

If you think NIST is made up of the best & brightest, think again.
Listen for yourself, Shyam Sunder & John Gross trip over themselves trying to explain high school science.

or read the the public comments to the NIST draft report and find out what the unresolved issues are, and what NIST ignored in their own report.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/...terstudies/wtc/combined2008publicComments.pdf

 

[SuperCharge]

Fuck was that ever long winded. Here's a whistleblower who worked for the NIST.
"As a former employee of the Time and Frequency division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) since 1960, with ongoing involvement in NIST conferences to this day, David W. Allan is disgusted with the prostitution of truth that has taken place in the case of the 9/11 investigations by NIST."

Let me guess, his credentials suck too! We could play this game all day long you know.

 

[fuji]

If you think NIST is made up of the best & brightest, think again.
Listen for yourself, Shyam Sunder & John Gross trip over themselves trying to explain high school science.

or read the the public comments to the NIST draft report and find out what the unresolved issues are, and what NIST ignored in their own report.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/...terstudies/wtc/combined2008publicComments.pdf

They are far more qualified than you, and far more qualified than the fake experts on YouTube you linked. Moreover, their expertise is actually in the appropriate fields. Finally, the NIST investigation was HUGE, involving many people, looking at many details.

The idea that so many people in and out of government were involved in a conspiracy theory is preposterous.

 

[fuji]

Fuck was that ever long winded. Here's a whistleblower who worked for the NIST.
"As a former employee of the Time and Frequency division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) since 1960, with ongoing involvement in NIST conferences to this day, David W. Allan is disgusted with the prostitution of truth that has taken place in the case of the 9/11 investigations by NIST."

Let me guess, his credentials suck too! We could play this game all day long you know.

What's a guy working in the time and frequency division is NIST have to do with 9/11?

I like your comment, "Fuck was that ever long winded." As a response to a post that fundamentally destroyed every single one of your points and left you totally refuted, that's classic!

 

[SuperCharge]

What's a guy working in the time and frequency division is NIST have to do with 9/11?

I like your comment, "Fuck was that ever long winded." As a response to a post that fundamentally destroyed every single one of your points and left you totally refuted, that's classic!

No what's classic is that you are so stuck on believing that WTC 7 fell on its own due to fire. That's fucking hilarious