|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
RockDock
First, Dr. Quintiere's critique of NIST in no way supports explosives theories, to say it does is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. He thinks NIST should have used even more severe criteria than the conservative ones used by NIST. I even agree with some of his points
| Quote: | Then, no matter how anyone might decide to look at it...
The 'wrong' tower fell first. |
Actually Tower two was hit lower and more asymmetrically than tower one. It had many more floors(and thus more weight) bearing down on the damaged frame that was being subjected to weakening by fire, so it is not unexpected that it would fail first. Also there is evidence that two's fire was more concentrated in the NE corner, the corner that failed first.
Simple physics can explain the differences between one and two.
Grumpy 
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RockDock
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grumpy wrote: | RockDock
First, Dr. Quintiere's critique of NIST in no way supports explosives theories, to say it does is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. He thinks NIST should have used even more severe criteria than the conservative ones used by NIST. I even agree with some of his points
|
Did you ready the article?
He thinks the conclusion is questionable. As in, not correct. Or complete.
| http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm wrote: |
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.” |
Did they listen to him? Doesn't seem so. You are right though, he doesn't think explosives brought down the towers. He also doesn't agree with their procedures or believe NIST's final conclusions:
| http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm wrote: |
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
|
He "thinks" it is a floor falling. No evidence cited, just his feeling. Well, I "think" he is wrong.
| http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm wrote: |
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said. |
Either way, NIST ran a flawed investigation and nothing you, Grumpy, say will ever convince me otherwise. Indeed, if the investigation is flawed it is a pretty good bet the conclusions are flawed too.
You assert that the US government had no involvement in the events of 911. Yet that same government blocked investigations at every turn. Why would they do that Grumpy if they had nothing to hide?
_________________
There are souls in the boots
Of the soldiers America
Fuck your yellow ribbon
If you want to
Support your troops
Bring them home
And hold them tight
When they get here
-Andrea Gibson - For Eli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
RockDock
| Quote: | | Either way, NIST ran a flawed investigation and nothing you, Grumpy, say will ever convince me otherwise. Indeed, if the investigation is flawed it is a pretty good bet the conclusions are flawed too. |
If by "flawed" you mean not perfect, I would accept that. If by flawed you mean being as wrong as the Conspiracy theorists are, I would strongly disagree. Whether NIST is more correct or Dr. Quintiere is more correct is a legitimate question. Dr. Quintiere wants to hold contractors liable for shoddy work. NIST found that the work was fine and NO building can be built to withstand such abuse. Either way, the plane impacts and fires were the cause, NOT EXPLOSIVES.
| Quote: | | You assert that the US government had no involvement in the events of 911. Yet that same government blocked investigations at every turn. Why would they do that Grumpy if they had nothing to hide? |
Incompetence, having a tin ear for politics, protecting fat cat friends, hiding their own failures, fear of being found out as the corrupt assholes they were, fear of being blamed for failure to heed warnings......
Bottom line is they did not perpetrate the attacks of 911 any more than they caused Hurricane Katrina, and look at how they resist(to this day) the investigations into that mess.
Never attribute to evil what stupidity can easily explain.
Grumpy
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grumpy does not care about any alternative conclusuions. He wants to believe that the "Muslim terrorist bastards are SOLELY responsible".
He will huff and puff and blow your house down if you dare put his conclusion under scrutiny.
Basically Grumpy is a spent force, an old git that found something to justify his hatred of religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Incompetence, having a tin ear for politics, protecting fat cat friends, hiding their own failures, fear of being found out as the corrupt assholes they were, fear of being blamed for failure to heed warnings......
Bottom line is they did not perpetrate the attacks of 911 any more than they caused Hurricane Katrina, and look at how they resist(to this day) the investigations into that mess.
Never attribute to evil what stupidity can easily explain. |
Jesus Christ, what a pile of BS man. The bottom line is you don't know what the foooook you are talking about. It's like saying they would definately stab you once, but in no way would they stab you twice.
Once again you show your lack of rationale due to your emotional angst against religion. And of course I know that to be true from reading your many bully boy posts over at your other favorite haunt.
Grumpy F*** Off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: Give Me Air |
|
|
Dr Sunder of the NIST tells us that the World Trade Center came down so fast because it was 70% air by volume.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
Notice he specifies "by volume." So how much was that by weight? We often hear the each tower was 500,000 TONS. How many TONS of air were in the building?
1 cubic foot of air at standard temperature and pressure assuming average composition weighs approximately 0.0807 lbs.
These were the dimensions of the WTC
207 ft. * 207 ft. * 1360 ft. = 58,274,640 cu. ft. above ground volume of WTC
So that volume of air weighed:
58,274,640 * 0.0807 = 4,702,763.448 lbs. of air
Which came to:
4,702,763.448 lbs. of air / 2,000 lb/ton = 2,351.381724 tons of air
2,351.381724 tons of air / 110 levels = 21.38 tons of air per level
But obviously Dr. Sunder is saying that 30% of the building was not air.
21.38 tons of air per level * 70% = 14.96 30% loss due to presence of building
So there were approximately 15 tons of air on each level of the WTC but the NIST cannot tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each level of a building designed in the 1960s and stood for 28 years. They can't do that with 3 years of research and $20,000,000 but they can tell us it came down so fast because it was 70% air by volume. Well it was only 0.5% air by weight and it wasn't the air that held it up for 28 years.
psik
_________________
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 physics is history |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
psikeyhackr
The point about the air was not it's negligable weight, but that 70% of the VOLUME of the building provided little or no resistance to the falling mass.
I've already showed you how to get the weight of concrete and steel for one floor, why should I have to repeat???
The 20 million gave us much more information than you are insinuating, read the reports if you are really interested in the science of the collapses, stop trying to waste my time explaining things you could find for yourself, if truth is REALLY your goal.
Grumpy
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Dont do any skyscraper design |
|
|
| Quote: | Total weight of the concrete on one floor of WTC 1 = 627 tons.
In addition, the mass of structural steel on one floor is estimated to be 1000 tons(average per floor taking total steel and dividing by 110) Higher floors had slightly less, lower floors slightly more by about 20-30% either way from the 55 floor.
All the values used to do this calculation were gleaned from the study of navstar1-1. As to exactly where each of these values are in that document, find them yourself, the exercise will do your brain some good. |
The WTC towers were 116 stories tall. The NIST report has a spot where it says some steel at the bottom was 7" thick. Other sources say the box columns were made of 5" and 3" steel. At the top floors it was down to 1/4". I bet there was more structural steel in the six basement level than in the top 20. I don't buy a linear distribution for a minute. So the clowns at NIST need to compute and all of the architects and structural engineers in the country should be demanding it.
They had to figure this type of stuff out for the Empire State Building. What kinds of computers did they have then?
psik
_________________
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 physics is history |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There were SIX BASEMENT LEVELS!
They had to have steel too. There were technical floors with machinery for elevators. They did not have NORMAL flooring.
psik
_________________
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 physics is history |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom:
Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
psikeyhackr
| Quote: | | I don't buy a linear distribution for a minute. |
The floor weights, other than the three mechanical floors, were identical for every floor. The only differences from one floor to another was the varying thickness of the steel the frame and core columns were made from.
This is the base of the largest corner core columns, with specs.
Grumpy
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rumpl4skn wrote: | Fintan's analysis on the mass of the twin towers, as compared to the size, from top to bottom:
Nothing linear about it, when you consider the materials used. |
Hard to imagine a pancake effect when you look at it like that.
I think the "experts" are being sent in to BS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
