End of Moussaoui trial may destroy Bush administration

[Jaguar]

FEAR MY MING STYLE SEQUENCE OF LOLS!

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Straybow
If this millionaire were serious he would use the money to fund a project to independently verify or critique the NIST model.

That's my point. Because the NIST refuses to release the coding for the software that they use for their model, it's basically impossible to verify or critique it. And if they used proprietary code, why don't they actually say so in order to make us believe that they have a good reason to not release the code?

[Kuciwalker]

WEAK

[Straybow]

Originally posted by 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,

Oh, sorry. Well, somebody doesn't understand them. Somebody only parrots what is posted at some website about the original analysis, which ignored this mode of failure. I thought it was you...

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

No, they haven't. You don't accept it, which may be equivalent to "debunked" in your mind. You prefer to believe that somebody somehow placed thousands of demolition charges ahead of time and selectively detonated the ones that would make it look like the aircraft impact were the cause. Or maybe somebody went to the burning floors (that most of the people couldn't escape) and planted hundreds of demolition charges to finish the job started by the aircraft...

I do appreciate the superior credentials you keep spouting though [Edit: fixed obvious typo]

Thanks, I worked hard for them and they came in useful for a while. I was sure somebody might appreciate a comment from an informed observer instead of the typical internet blowhard "Is not!" vs "Is too!" exchange. I'm glad your demolitions expertise has helped everyone understand what really happened to the WTC Towers.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer
That's my point. Because the NIST refuses to release the coding for the software that they use for their model, it's basically impossible to verify or critique it. And if they used proprietary code, why don't they actually say so in order to make us believe that they have a good reason to not release the code?

You miss the point. These are engineering fundamentals. Insisting that the spray-on fireproofing didn't get knocked off is about the only thing you can do to critique the model, unless you expect to find a coding error.

[Geronimo]

Straybow, under what conditions might we expect a modern skyscraper to fall in a manner other than more or less straight down? I've been told (not in this forum) that buildings can at least hypothetically "fall over" rather than falling more or less straight down but I've also seen it claimed that skyscrapers can't really be made to do anything of the sort.

[chequita guevara]

They would have to be hit with something really massive to knock them over. If you look at the demolition of the Sands, IIRC, it fell over, but not really very far. When the structural integrity goes out of the bottom, everything else just seems to collapse, rather than holding together and falling over as one large piece.

[Ted Striker]

You prefer to believe that somebody somehow placed thousands of demolition charges ahead of time and selectively detonated the ones that would make it look like the aircraft impact were the cause. Or maybe somebody went to the burning floors (that most of the people couldn't escape) and planted hundreds of demolition charges to finish the job started by the aircraft...

This is another example of what I call writing a blank endorsement check for something I have never even discussed. Also known as a strawman. Care to quote where I ever mentioned demolition charges?

However, the big difference in opinion between the "official" story and the "conspiracy" one is whether or not the supporting floor trusses on the upper levels weakening was enough to bring the core (which was unbelievable strong) down.

There is a case to be made that core would have remained intact, even after the plane slammed into it.

The building was designed for multiple 707 impacts. Multiple. Nobody has provided an answer for that. Oh but the fireproofing got knocked off they probably forgot about that when designing it.

[Ted Striker]

I can appreciate where you guys are coming from.

I've even used the exact words you guys did and got pissed off at people who questioned the "official" line:

"A ****ing big azz plane flew into a building and blew it up! Duh!"

But after taking a second look, there are a few things standing out, most importantly all the secrecy.

Alterantive theories outrageous ? Yes

Are they hard to prove ? Yes

Should we just take what we are given and accept it like sheep ? Hell no

But what is most disturbing to me is how you guys tow the line with knee jerk reactions, not even wanting to discuss it. You're scared of the taboo that would even suggest anything other than the "official" line, and what's even more scary, you want to accept it WORD FOR WORD. Most of all I feel sorry for you.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I can appreciate where you guys are coming from.

I've even used the exact words you guys did and got pissed off at people who questioned the "official" line:

"A ****ing big azz plane flew into a building and blew it up! Duh!"

But after taking a second look, there are a few things standing out, most importantly all the secrecy.

Alterantive theories outrageous ? Yes

Are they hard to prove ? Yes

Should we just take what we are given and accept it like sheep ? Hell no

But what is most disturbing to me is how you guys tow the line with knee jerk reactions, not even wanting to discuss it. You're scared of the taboo that would even suggest anything other than the "official" line, and what's even more scary, you want to accept it WORD FOR WORD. Most of all I feel sorry for you.

why don't you like the explanation that the fireproofing came off? IIRC It was a relatively new spray-on variety fireproofing and it's easy to imagine that no studies had yet been done on how aging might effect it's adherance to the beams.

707's carry *a lot* less fuel than a 747 too.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Whats more is that if I recall correctly earlier building inspections after the WTC bombing showed a general either deteroriation of the fireproofing or inadequate initial spray treatment. I beleive the recommendation was to address this but it was either not fully completed or even initiated (but my memory is fuzzy on those details) It did strike me at the time though that if true there were likely gonna be some law suits.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Geronimo


why don't you like the explanation that the fireproofing came off? IIRC It was a relatively new spray-on variety fireproofing and it's easy to imagine that no studies had yet been done on how aging might effect it's adherance to the beams.

707's carry *a lot* less fuel than a 747 too.

Actually the plane that hit the towers was a 757

The 707 actually carries MORE fuel than the 757, and travels at a faster cruising speed

This is because fuel efficiency during the 707's time was not as good as it is today

There is a graphic a few posts back showing the comparison between the two planes and they are very similar

[Ted Striker]

NIST's analysis of the fireproofing on the towers comes specifically from photographic evidence of the damaged area. It would be nice to actually see these photographs. On the other hand, what kinds of variables were introduced into their simulation as a result of these photographs? Guesstimations?

The combination of a loss of fireproofing from impact and the searing heat of the aftermath of the fuel fire was blamed for the steel failure and subsequent destruction of tower 1 and tower 2.

On the other hand, there is conflicting information regarding tower 7. This is the official testimony.

Dr. CORLEY.

As far as the fireproofing for Building 7, we have no evidence that it was knocked off as a result of damage from debris coming from either of the two towers. There was evidence the building was struck by some of the debris. We have been unable to quantify how much damage there was. We did not conclude that the fireproofing was knocked out. We believe it was a fire that continued to burn for a long period of time, meaning it had a very large source of fuel. And other than that, it was a building that came down just from the fire and without substantial structural damage.

Mr. EHLERS. That is a real concern to me. Because are the beams and girders designed to withstand the fire with the insulation in place?

Dr. CORLEY. I will ask Professor Barnett to address that part of it.

Dr. BARNETT. Thank you. The building codes specify performance in a standard fire-resistance test. The building codes do not specify performance in real fires. So the buildings are designed in accordance with the standard and the tests. Our history has been excellent. Up until 9/11, we had never had a collapse of a protected steel building. But we have now had one. We now need to look and see what occurred. This is a problem. You are right. And this is of great concern to all of us.

So wait a minute. First he says well the codes aren't for actual real fires, they're just for tests. (So wtf is the code for in the first place?)

Then he goes on to say that no steel tower has ever failed because of a fire. (And there are many examples of fires much much worse than in any of the WTC's, where the buildings have never failed).

This whole fireproofing concept just sounds like it's made up on the spot. So which is it? It has survived every fire until now or the code isn't up to standard?

Tower 7 had minimal structural damage enough to knock the fireproofing off but it collapsed because of fire?

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy78961.000/hsy78961_1.HTM

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Actually the plane that hit the towers was a 757

The 707 actually carries MORE fuel than the 757, and travels at a faster cruising speed

This is because fuel efficiency during the 707's time was not as good as it is today

There is a graphic a few posts back showing the comparison between the two planes and they are very similar

But designers wouldn't plan for cruising speed they'd plan for a speed mandated for planes at that altitude. Those planes were moving much faster than any plane that could have accidentally collided with the towers. The designers obviously would only have planned for accidents not terrorist kamakazi attacks.

As for the fuel loads you were far closer to accurate than I was but nonetheless the planes the hit the towers weren't 757s they were 767s.

241,140 litres max fuel capacity for 747

90,000 liters max fuel capacity for 767

87, 000 liters max fuel capacity for 707

43,490 liters max fuel capacity for 757

That's not much more fuel than the designers would have expected from a fully fuled 707. Almost exactly the same in fact. But all it would take would be a failure to predict the behavior of the fire retardant insulation to ruin their predictions.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah, you're right, I always get the 57 and the 67 mixed up. It's even on my graphic last page ROFL

Keep in mind the 767 that hit the towers was listed at carrying 11,000 gallons of fuel, I think it was like at 40% capacity.

Regarding the speed, it's probably inconclusive then to know at what speeds the designers planned for without interviewing them. Though I have not run across that information yet, I'm sure it's out there.


Good post