End of Moussaoui trial may destroy Bush administration

[DinoDoc]

Straybow is a glutton for punishment throwing pearls of wisdom before swine.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Straybow
9/11 commission already covered all that. I will try to break it down for you.

Could you put all that information into a computer program that would model a collapse without the use of explosives? As I've already mentioned earlier, the NIST put together a computer model of the collapse, but refused to release the actual program code, which means we have no idea whether the program has any scientific validity at all.

By the way, if you're really confident about your theory, a millionaire is offering $1 million to the first person who can come up with a detailed mathematical analysis of the collapse without the use of explosives, for details click here:

http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Straybow
9/11 commission already covered all that. I will try to break it down for you. I do have a degree in Civil Engineering and postgrad work (all but thesis) in structural engineering. If I were talking to an engineer about the WTC collapse there are many things I would bring up that I won't waste my time trying to explain to non-engineers.

The "over-engineering" (actually called "factor of safety") mentioned in your cut 'n' paste is not the same as the overbuilding of the ESB I was talking about. If the ESB design were recalculated using techniques and standards contemporary to WTC the beam and column sections employed would be lighter by a significant factor. But that is more of a footnote for comparing the ESB B-25 incident to the WTC attack.

Now take off your tin foil hat and pay attention: it isn't the failure of the columns that initiates collapse, but the failure of flooring truss/connections that initiates collapse.

The first factor in WTC collapse is the open floorplan. Without intermediate loadbearing the entire floor slab can fall once enough floor-to-column connections or truss members near connections fail.

It is a matter of progressive failure. The strength of the floor truss depends on being connected to the columns. The strength of the columns depends on being connected to the floor truss. The strength of the core depends on being connected to the rest of the structure.

With a number of curtain columns knocked out the floor truss is partially unsupported, overstressing the connections near the impact damage. As fire weakens the steel those connections fail. Now the next set of connections are overstressed even more, and failure is more likely. It is like a slow motion unzipping of the floor from the supporting columns.

The second important factor in WTC collapse: Original design did not account for fireproofing being knocked off by the impact, negating their analysis of fire resistance. The degradation of fireproof cladding meant the burning floors collapsed more easily than expected.

Do either of these factors guarantee collapse? No, but that is the critical path of collapse. Column strength had no effect on WTC collapse.

If enough floors collapse the columns fail elastically by buckling. They are designed to be braced by the floors to prevent buckling. Once that critical unbraced length is passed the columns buckle, placing great stresses on floor-column connections of floors below, essentially guaranteeing that floors not weakened by fire will collapse under the weight of the floors falling from above.

This is old information already, you guys act like you are disseminating new information. It might be new to you guys but these official reports have been out for years already.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer

Could you put all that information into a computer program that would model a collapse without the use of explosives? As I've already mentioned earlier, the NIST put together a computer model of the collapse, but refused to release the actual program code, which means we have no idea whether the program has any scientific validity at all.

By the way, if you're really confident about your theory, a millionaire is offering $1 million to the first person who can come up with a detailed mathematical analysis of the collapse without the use of explosives, for details click here:
http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

[chequita guevara]

I was going to argue, but then I thought, this doesn't deserve the dignity of serious rebuttal.

[Darius871]

You're telling me, I wasted a whopping 34.7 seconds on accounta them twits.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer

Could you put all that information into a computer program that would model a collapse without the use of explosives? As I've already mentioned earlier, the NIST put together a computer model of the collapse, but refused to release the actual program code, which means we have no idea whether the program has any scientific validity at all.

By the way, if you're really confident about your theory, a millionaire is offering $1 million to the first person who can come up with a detailed mathematical analysis of the collapse without the use of explosives, for details click here:
http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

did it ever occur to you that the code like practically all such code was likely in whole or in part proprietary code that NIST did not own outright?

There are very few instances where it is possible to make source code public unless it was all open source public domain code to begin with.

[Sikander]

Looking at this from another angle, why would "they" conspire to blow up their own buildings, how could they enlist enough cravenly disloyal people in government to carry it out without being discovered, and how could a conspiracy this large and important remain undetected when we see smaller, tighter and more sensible conspiracies brought to light constantly? Anyone with a tinfoil hat feel free.

[Ted Striker]

That's a good question and I have no answer for it

I'm not arguing motive here just want to see some more questions answered instead of all the secrecy

Though it is difficult when all the evidence about anything is pretty much gone, no way to recheck the steel, etc.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
This is old information already, you guys act like you are disseminating new information. It might be new to you guys but these official reports have been out for years already.

Look, you're the one citing information about the columns and the building design and how it shouldn't have collapsed, etc. It is apparent that you don't understand, and need to be properly informed.

[Arrian]

It's funny. You shoot down one Slaughtermeyer argument (Rummy's quotes) and he pops up with new crap.

Gee, why would an Indian paper point the finger at Pakistan? I wonder? [Jeopardy music]

Could it be because India and Pakistan are enemies, and Pakistan stood to gain quite a bit (possibly at India's expense) from its sudden status as "friend of the USA" after 9/11? Nah, that's too ****ing logical.

-Arrian

[Straybow]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Straybow is a glutton for punishment throwing pearls of wisdom before swine.

Yeah, that's what I felt as I posted it.

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer

Originally posted by Straybow
9/11 commission already covered all that. I will try to break it down for you.

Could you put all that information into a computer program that would model a collapse without the use of explosives? As I've already mentioned earlier, the NIST put together a computer model of the collapse, but refused to release the actual program code, which means we have no idea whether the program has any scientific validity at all.

By the way, if you're really confident about your theory, a millionaire is offering $1 million to the first person who can come up with a detailed mathematical analysis of the collapse without the use of explosives, for details click here:
http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

The answer is "no."

First, working alone it would take years to make such a model. I got burnt out on my thesis doing similar work, which was a problem called "lateral torsional buckling." I have no desire to repeat the experience amplified by an order of magnitude.

If this millionaire were serious he would use the money to fund a project to independently verify or critique the NIST model. In that case, the answer is still "no." My experience says that people like this cannot be convinced. They will reject an independent study just as they have rejected the NIST study.

Such people have already rejected the premise, and therefore, in their minds, any model that accounts for the premise is inherently faulty. They would only believe if somehow the answer popped out on its own, unbidden, like magic.

The reality is that such a model is only a laboratory to test the premise. You set up the model with parameters that you can adjust to find out what limits are involved. How much fireproofing must be lost to allow the steel to heat up at this or that rate? How much additional stress will cause failure at different temperatures of the steel?

Once you know that:

• yes, an impact can knock that type of fireproofing off, and,
• yes, the steel can then reach critical temperatures in the timespan observed, and,
• yes, the steel at that temperature will fail and the floor will collapse

you have the answer that it is more than possible, it is somewhere between likely and certain. Whether you accept it or cling to some conspiracy theory is beyond the reach of analysis.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Ted Striker
This is old information already, you guys act like you are disseminating new information. It might be new to you guys but these official reports have been out for years already.

Look, you're the one citing information about the columns and the building design and how it shouldn't have collapsed, etc. It is apparent that you don't understand, and need to be properly informed.

Not really, I understand all these points very well, but considering all 3 of your points below:

Once you know that:

* yes, an impact can knock that type of fireproofing off, and,
* yes, the steel can then reach critical temperatures in the timespan observed, and,
* yes, the steel at that temperature will fail and the floor will collapse

Have all been debunked

I do appreciate the blowhard credentials you keep spouting though

[Arrian]

Dude, can you be any more of an ass? Blowhard credentials? You mean he, like, might actually have a clue as to what he's talking about? Like?

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hmmmm....Given the choice between blowhard credentials and no credentials or more to the point a person who has the slightest grasp on the topic matter and someone who has no clue. Gotta go with the slightly informed here.