I'm Going to Toot My Own Horn Here Just a Bit

[petgoat]

Almost 18 months ago I shared these sketches, which didn't
go over very well here.

I'm not an engineer. I've worked in construction and read
lots of books on building and I operate a lot in the failure
mode through taking on the repair of hopelessly broken stuff
other people consider garbage, and when I'm building stuff
for my own use I deliberately underbuild it to try to generate
instructive failures. My first project was as a
five-year-old--a chair that provided an interesting (and
instant) shear failure when I sat on it.

I have reason to believe that one of these days you're going to
see some diagrams from more authoritative sources that look
something like these.

[SDuderstadt]

1. If anyone here can decipher Wtf Petgoat is babbling about here....

would you let me know?

[LARED]

4. Some type of Rorschach test?????

The last one is truly baffling. Two lawn rakes ready for battle?

[AZCat]

5. I had to look at the image name...

but they are apparently intended to be rakes. I don't know why. Nor do I know why petgoat decided to use the worst image program available to draw these. Why not just use crayons and scan them?

[petgoat]

6. You wouldn't know why there are two rakes.

Clearly you can't see that for the top of the tower to fall through the
lower part of the tower would not be like a piledriver pounding a pile
but like trying to pound a rake with another rake.

Actually, since the lower rake is more robust than the pounding rake,
this updated version is more apt.




I don't use crayons 'cause I don't want to get wax on my scanner.

That you're unimpressed by my sketches goes a long way to explain
why you're so impressed by the NIST report. Presumably you like the
pretty pictures.

[LARED]

7. A Rorschach test makes more sense - nt

[AZCat]

8. I see you are as capable at constructing informative analogies...

as you are anything else. At least you're consistently incompetent - that makes it predictable.

[LARED]

10. One of my favorites

www.despair.com

[AZCat]

11. I don't think I've seen a more apt application of that one.

My co-worker has "incompetence" on his wall. I have "teamwork" on mine (the snowball one).

[Realityhack]

112. Demotivational posters ROCK!

Which incidentally seems to be the only interesting thing to come from this thread.

[petgoat]

12. Yeah, that's about the reaction I got 17 months ago. Just you wait, gentlemen.

And as to incompetence, well LARED you should be an expert on that.

[LARED]

13. Just you wait for what?

You seriously expect someone to validate your scribbles?

[petgoat]

15. Wait for large pendulous breasts. Wait for what the OP promises. nt

[AZCat]

17. We'll be waiting.

If you create any more technical "diagrams" in the future, please don't wait to post them. Your posts and related material are quite popular at work, and I'd hate to deprive my co-workers of your creative genius.

[petgoat]

18. If your co-workers have any questions, intelligent or otherwise, please forward them.

That you were unable to intuit the obvious implications of rakeonrake
suggests that, if they're anything like you, they won't have any at all.

[AZCat]

37. It's telling that you think the "implications" of your doodles are obvious.

The only people who would be able to make sense of them are psychologists and psychiatrists. They have no value to the rest of us, except as the butt of our jokes.

[petgoat]

42. The rake on rake implication is obvious to ANYONE with any understanding

of the construction of the twin towers and the official hypothesis about
the collapses.

[AZCat]

94. Nope.

It's a horrid analogy, petgoat. You only look more foolish the more you try to defend it.

It's okay to admit you're wrong about something. It's not like I'm going to treat you differently. I'm already an asshole - how could it get worse?

[petgoat]

98. The rake on rake analogy is obvious

The Bazant and Zhou paper that is the intellectual basis of NIST's
take on the collapse claims that the top of WTC1 (15 floors) fell
3.7 meters and imposed an irresistable dynamic load on the structure
below.

This is obviously absurd because the assumption that 287 columns
simultaneously vaporized so that 15 floors could fall as a unit
is an obvious impossibility.

But think of it. Even if this did happen, Bazant and Zhou assume that
all 287 columns impact the lower 287 columns with perfect alignment.
That too is impossible.

Any misalignment in space or any dis-synchronism in time makes an
asymmetrical collapse.

Misalignment in space, as Anders Bjoerkman points out, means that
broken columns start punching through floors instead of pounding
on columns. Slidsing frictions are introduced, as shown in the drawing
above, and as shown in the rake analogy.

AZ, your one-liner FUD reports are silly. Give it up, man. Come to the
light!

[AZCat]

99. I'm tired.

I worked every day this last weekend, even Monday. I'm working twelve hour days (minimum - tomorrow will probably be longer) all this week. I spent the entire day today pouring over drawings looking for discrepancies between the various floor plans and sections. I haven't the energy to write a post that responds to all the fucked up wrongness in your post, but I'll at least let you in on one thing: if you are using Anders as a source, you've gone down the wrong path. He is about as wrong-headed as you can get. I can see why you'd be attracted to him, since he also is fond of blindingly stupid analogies (the picnic table, for example).

Nobody in their right mind thinks that the collapse had all the columns of the upper section impact on the columns of the lower section. B&Z assumed that in order to simplify what is a complicated (if not intractable) question. Non column-on-column impacts decrease the likelihood that the collapse would be arrested, because less of the gravitational energy is spent buckling columns that, if left unsupported, will fall all on their own.

I'm going to bed. Please try to have something significant for me to read (rather than your usual pointless rants) when I return tomorrow night.

[petgoat]

100. What picnic table? I read Bjorkman quite carefully. nt

[AZCat]

101. It was over at the JREF forums.

It was an excellent example of Bjorkman's failure to understand the fundamental issues of the collapses of the WTC towers - one of many.

[petgoat]

102. And you can't be bothered to quote it.

JREFers are a bunch of juveniles trying to top each others' one-liners,
much like the DU "pseudo-science" guys that used to plague this board
with their "invisible jewish elves" nonsense about controlled demolition.

[AZCat]

104. If it was at the JREF it should be easy for you to find.

He posts under the username Heiwa. He has started several threads about his "paper". That should be enough information for a researcher of your caliber.

[petgoat]

109. Having been burned at the pseudoscience thread at DU, I have little patience for JREF.

They have some smart people there, I've heard, and the threads about that
hero janitor feller are worth a read. Most of what I've seen is asocial
juveniles giggling at each others' dumb jokes.

[LARED]

110. Thanks for kicking this - Fond memories - nt

[SDuderstadt]

113. "asocial juveniles giggling at each others' dumb jokes"

Actually, that's a spot on description of some of the "truthers" here if you append "goofy graphics, videos and song lyrics" to the end of it

[AZCat]

116. You mean this thread?

Yeah, it's pseudoscience, but I wouldn't say you've been "burned". More like "held up as an example of the epic failure of the 'truth movement'".

[petgoat]

117. Yeah, like LARED, and Sid, and you. nt

[AZCat]

122. Ah, but we are not members...

of the "truth movement". Instead, we're members of the reality movement.

[petgoat]

123. You are not truth seekers, and your absurd fantasies bear no resemblance to reality. nt

[SDuderstadt]

126. What bullshit, Petgoat....

if it's really "truth" you seek, where is your alternative hypothesis? Why can't you guys put one together? Constantly assailing the motivation of those who disagree with you, doesn't advance your cause much.


You're just pissed because the evidence leads away from your goofy theories.

[AZCat]

127. Says the same person who posted the OP.

'nuff said.

[LARED]

129. Rich irony, Very full favored. - nt

[Sweet Pea]

21. "You Just Wait"

Either the refrain of the hopeless or the mantra of the ill-informed.

[petgoat]

22. The promise of the prepared. nt

[Sweet Pea]

23. More like the promise of the newlywed lawyer...

"It's gonna be great, honey! Just you wait!"

[petgoat]

24. I'm no newlywed. I made those sketches 18 months ago.

If the implications of the rakeonrake sketch are not obvious to you,
you should ponder the WTC construction photos until you become wise.

[Flatulo]

2. All I see are large, pendulous breasts. nt

[seemslikeadream]

3. You would

[AZCat]

9. At least he's honest. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

14. I wonder if someday you could see your way to defend me that way

I'm really honest, really I am.

[AZCat]

16. Have I ever said otherwise?

My post was more of a half-hearted defense of my sex (at least the ones who have reached puberty) than anything else.

[jberryhill]

35. You can sometimes catch a set of used Rorschach cards on Ebay

...better than porn.

[petgoat]

44. For you maybe. All I see is scary butterflies and ghosts serving margaritas. nt

[MercutioATC]

19. SHAME on you people!

I leave for a few months and you drive petgoat to insanity.

You should be ashamed.

[petgoat]

20. Hey there Mercutio

Welcome back! :hi:

My, does my sanity get impugned lately!

When I was a kid in California, an ex-mental patient ran for
public office for no reason except to get publicity for the
problems ex-mental patients face in reintegrating in society.

He had a great platform: "Vote for me. I'm the only
candidate that's been certified sane!"

Well I'm afraid I haven't been certified sane. Nobody's perfect,
I guess.

[MercutioATC]

38. Oh, I'm not "back"...just visiting.

Perhaps if you explained the drawings you posted this thread wouldn't seem so odd.

I've been out of the loop for a while, so I have no idea what those drawings are supposed to mean.

[petgoat]

43. Maybe you should give some thought to the collapse mechanism of the twin towers. nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

95. We ain't driving

that bus left long ago. :hi:

[MercutioATC]

96. Hey, Vincent!

:hi:

[AZCat]

97. Nice to see you dropping by occasionally.

You haven't forgotten about your glory days in the dungeon yet?

[jberryhill]

25. Ooohhh, I love Droodles...

Okay, now guess this one:

[SDuderstadt]

26. Did someone give Petgoat an etch-a-sketch?

That might explain things.

[petgoat]

27. Yeah, this is about the reaction I got 17 months ago.

Obviously you guys are more interested in levity than truth,
and you'd rather talk about an anonymous internet poster
than about the collapse of the twin towers.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Petgoat...

You guys have had going on 7 years to put together a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. So far, you've attracted a fringe crowd of people with limited critical thinking skills who seem unable to see the big picture. When someone is capable of big picture thinking, they can frame the hypothesis and reason their way through the pieces that would have to be in place for the hypothesis to be true. This seems to elude the CT crowd. What's worse is that they will discard the facts that disprove their theories and often uproariously argue that "black is white" if needed to maintain their faith. Again, that's why the "truth movement" is such a laughingstock and an utter embarrassment to us liberals/progressives. I'm hoping you guys go away after we dems take back the white house and widen our majorities in the House and the Senate.

[jberryhill]

33. "after we dems take back the white house and widen our majorities"

Indeed they will. But I'm holding out for a few going out in a blaze of glory.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Get lost, Ghost

Seriously

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. Is that how you always react to learning something?

What is it that prevents you from admitting that you were wrong, even when the truth is sitting on your lap, staring you in the face?

[MrMickeysMom]

145. Hey GITM, my guess is -

Some people don't want to learn. And some people are even more pathetic, they get off on distracting others from learning.

Lots of little no-neck mouth breathers out there... I've never seen 9-11 so abused by this behavior. Don't question "the wisdom of the phony committee" and if you have to depict any pictures on the anniversary, only use Hollywood movie productions of 911 as a fear tactic.

Yeah, that's my guess.

[jberryhill]

32. Aha - but you didn't guess right

It is a spider enjoying its favorite movie.

Here, try this one:

[jberryhill]

89. Time's Up!

It's the hunchback of Notre Dame going on a coffee break.

[greyl]

29. Petgoat,

I'll toot your horn if you can show me where the hell it is.

[subsuelo]

30. Hi petgoat

I'm a 9/11 'truther'. I no longer believe the official CT holds any validity. Maybe at one time I thought well maybe official CT could possibly be true. But there are too many holes and too many obvious deceptions. Those who do believe it, IMO have been duped. Duped, brainwashed, whatever it is - to me the most ridiculous 'theory' is the official story. Fact is, the brainwashing has occurred mostly in the United States. And the U.S. is of course a population that doesn't even know that the country we have been occupying for the last 5 years had nothing to do with Sept 11th. Not exactly well-informed populace, all things considered.

I write that preface to say this. I am sorry but I don't get your sketches. I'm not trying to take a jab at you or get too critical here, but I'm just saying - as a 'truther' and as someone that sees the OCT as fabrications and lies - I just don't get the point of the sketches. Would you mind explaining? Thanks

[SDuderstadt]

31. I wonder if anyone besides me....

sees the irony here. Just askin'. I also think the suggestion that people who can tell the "truth movement" itself is "full of holes" are somehow brainwashed is absurd. Pray tell, how, exactly, are we brainwashed?

[jberryhill]

34. "I am sorry but I don't get your sketches"

That's because you've been brainwashed to the point of simply not being able to see how these sketches TOTALLY DEMOLISH the notion that the towers collapsed after having been damaged by aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

In order to mobilize the populace into supporting a war that quite a few of us never supported in the first place even after the mis-use of these events to justify it, it would not have been enough to kill hundreds of people in what would have been the most spectacular sequence of airline disasters ever... it was necessary to make buildings come down, or else everyone would have said, "Oh, big deal, so a few airplanes crashed."

[truedelphi]

36. Make room for me on the virtual couch.

The rake analogy to me is a poor one, because the pole of the rake doesn't extend into the rakey part of the rake. So the way that the columns would extend into every part of the building doesn't get covered.

[petgoat]

45. Interesting how many replies are "Petgoat..."

People want to respond to the messenger instead of the message.

Get a life!

[LARED]

46. Once again you miss the obvious

there is no message, just scribbles.

[petgoat]

47. No Message, Just Scribbles is the motto of the illiterate.

You can say that about Shakespeare, or da Vinci.

Are you graphically illiterate?

Do you need me to explain the drawings? Are you that obtuse?

You don't know a core and a perimeter column and a floor panel
when you see one?

You don't know a core choked with an energy-absorbing sponge of
debris so that no disorganized mat of debris can pound it?

You don't see the analogy between the core structure of the towers
and a rake? Would it help if I drew it as a fork instead?

I've been through years of internet debates with right-wingers
in open forums. Playing dumb is usually the sign of their last
gasp.

[LARED]

48. You're a laugh riot PG

First off you ain't no Shakespeare, or da Vinci. The very thought is laughable.

Second, just because your drawings are childish, scrawls whose meaning is unclear does not mean I am playing dumb. I find it absolutely incredible you actually believe someday in the future your "graphic representations" will be appreciated.

Maybe your Mom will tape them to the frig.

[petgoat]

55. no Shakespeare, or da Vinci.

How do you know? You can't read.

That the sketches are meaningless to you shows you have given
little thought to the collapse mechanism of the twin towers.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation?

No?

I didn't think so....

[SDuderstadt]

51. Get lost, Ghost

No one asked you. Jesus, you're boring.

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. "Wah wah wah! No one asked you!"

I know *you* wouldn't ask me... because you don't like being proven wrong by dirty ol' long haired, tattooed hippie, huh?

Jesus, you're pathetic... just another OCT hugger who has been proven wrong on more than one occasion. You don't even know what you're talking about, yet you just keep on spouting away, don't you?

I've got your number, son.... and I'm gonna ring that sumbitch every time you post a 'factual inaccuracy'....

If you can't provide anything intelligent or productive to a conversation, maybe you should just excuse yourself from it right from the beginning. Your childish sniping and personal attacks against other members here is getting stale... very stale...

If you're not grown up enough to handle being proven wrong like an adult, maybe you should consider researching a little more before you post something, to make sure it's factually correct. Know what I mean, Vern?

[SDuderstadt]

53. Ghost...

you can't even see the mistake you're making in your interpretation of the NIST FAQ, can you? Try this. Read the first part again where NIST said that it took @ 9 and 11 seconds for the first EXTERIOR panels from the towers to strike the ground. Then do the calculations for how long it would take for the ENTIRE buildings to collapse IF they had been falling at free fall speed. Look further down at the same section in the NIST FAQ and you'll see the following statement:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

See that, Ghost? What do you think that means? Hint: it means they are not certain of the total collapse time of the building. What contributes to wrong interpretations of the NIST FAQ is its rather imprecise wording in the way they framed the initial question. And, if you'd bothet to read, the back and forth between Petgoat and I was actually about the total collapse time.

Here's your other bigger clue. Get whatever video you want of either or both collapses. Watch them carefully and you'll notice something very striking. The exterior panels (as well as the debris cloud) are both falling FASTER than the actual building. Do you understand what free-fall speed means, Ghost? It's the exterior panels (as NIST actually says)as well as the debric cloud that are falling at free-fall speed. The actual building (by definition) is falling at slower than freefall speed. I'm willing to concede that NIST's imprecise wording contributes to the misunderstanding, but I plan on dropping it right here, so don't bother to respond. As I stated before, Jesus, you're boring. Bye.

[Ghost in the Machine]

54. SDude... nice deflection, but it's not the point of what I was talking about, was it?

The conversation wasn't about the exterior panels hitting first.

Here, let me remind you what you said:

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Sun May-18-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #236
241. Please cite where NIST says the building section was...
near free falling "to the ground". They said no such thing. They're talking about the building section free-falling until it hit the remainder of the building. If not, they would not have distinguished the exterior panels hitting the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. It's also clear that "building section" is referring to one of the towers, not both.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=204280&mesg_id=205738

And here was my response to you, which you chose to ignore, proving you were incorrect:

Ghost in the Machine (1000+ posts) Wed May-21-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #241
257. You're wrong on this, SDude...
Edited on Wed May-21-08 12:13 AM by Ghost in the Machine
Read it again, clearly...

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Now let's take a look at that last paragraph, removing the redundant parts:

In other words, the momentum of the 12 to 28 stories falling on the supporting structure below so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that the structure below was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Does *that* help make it clearer? YES, the NIST Report says that *the whole buildings* came down in essential freefall, because the structure below offered minimal resistance....

Oh, yeah... ummmm... "It's also clear that "building section" is referring to one of the towers, not both".... yeah, *that* is wrong, too, as you can read above. Here it is again, though:

"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below...."

See? They're talking about BOTH BUILDINGS....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=204280&mesg_id=205957

Once again I'll have to ask you to please try to follow along and keep up with a conversation. Is that too much to ask? Quit distracting and deflecting and stick to the pertinent issue at hand...

Thanks

Ghost

[petgoat]

56. LARED is graphic illiterate; Dude is text illiterate. Maybe the two of them together

could be half-way functional?

[greyl]

57. What of subsuelo?

Did you miss their post?

[SDuderstadt]

59. This is unintentional irony again.....

right, Petgoat?

[LARED]

67. Good luck

Just because the irony is evident to almost everyone, don't kid yourself the PG is part of that group.

Remember PG actually believes that someone someday will appreciate the "graphics" and heap praise on PG for his/her vision, and foresight.

As I said earlier maybe Mom will tape them to the frig.

[Ghost in the Machine]

62. A thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

58. And you totally ignore the last paragraph again...

in which NIST states that:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Why do they include that, Ghost, if they're certain that the entire buildings fell at free-fall speeds? Because they're NOT, which was my point. As usual, you're trying to argue a different point than the one I was actually making. Which is why you're so boring. Bye. Continue this "debate" by yourself. I'm done.

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. Why do *you* ignore plain english? Do you need smaller sentences instead of paragraphs?

Here, does this make it easier for you?:

SDude: "Please cite where NIST says the building section was...
near free falling "to the ground"."

NIST: "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall"... (lots of words that *you* don't read)... "the structure below was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass."

Ghost explains to SDude: If the top of the buildings came down in essential freefall and the structure below was UNABLE TO "STOP OR EVEN SLOW THE FALLING MASS", then *the whole fucking thing* came down "in essential freefall". Understand? Or do I need to use smaller words?

SDude: " It's also clear that "building section" is referring to one of the towers, not both."

NIST: "In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below...."

Ghost explains to SDude: Yes, NIST is referring to BOTH Towers. Period. End of reading comprehension lesson

Now go slap yourself around some more, and scream in agony, because you got educated by a dirty ol' long haired hippie... it's NOT the end of the world, SDude... have a joint and a smile, you'll feel better...

[SDuderstadt]

63. Simple question, Ghost

Look at the videos of the collapses. Note that the exterior panels and the debris clouds are, in fact, falling faster than the actual buildings. Question: Since it's obvious that the exterior panels and the debris clouds are falling at free fall speed and the buildings are not falling as fast, how can you conclude that the buildings are falling at free fall speed? Are you claiming the exterior panels and debris clouds are falling faster than free fall speed? If so, explain how something can fall faster than free fall speed. If not, then exactly what is your claim? Do you see the logical dilemma you are in here?

[freedom fighter jh]

64. I don't know Ghost's take on this, but a thing CAN fall faster than freefall . . .

. . . if another force in addition to gravity acts on it. Maybe something forced those panels down. From the pics you can see that some debris was pushed up -- why assume that nothing was pushed down?

But even if not, we are talking here about seconds. Even if the buildings provided just enough resistance to extend the collapse time by a couple of seconds, there is still the unanswered question of how their resistance was overcome.

[Ghost in the Machine]

66. I was going to mention that part, too.. but held back...

Some of the panels could have been shot off the building like a projectile, imho, from the force of the initial collapse. We don't know *where* the first measurable pieces hit when they fell. Was it straight down at the base of the buildings? How big would a piece have to have been before it measured on a seismograph? There was definitely some pieces being shot down under force. It's visible on the videos..

PEACE!

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

70. Look at Frank Greening's paper on this....

let me know if you can't find it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. I found two nonworking links to his pdf report, but was able to read the gist of some of it at

debunking911.com.... I'll try to find a working link to it, so I can read the whole thing, though...

Let me ask one question though... do all these calculations just assume that the first panels that hit the ground *came* from the top, at or near the impact/collapse initiation area? How do we even know *where* they came from? Is it possible that some panels lower down on the building were knocked loose by the impact of the 12 and/or 28 stories falling on top of the rest of the structure? What if the first panel that hit the ground came from around the 40th floor, not the 82nd or 98th?

[SDuderstadt]

79. From WATCHING the freaking videos, Ghost!

How else do you assume they did it???


Here's a working link to Greening's paper.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

[Ghost in the Machine]

82. When watching the videos, are you concentrating on the top, where the collapse is happening,

.. or are you looking at the bottoms of the buildings? Most people are paying attention to the collapse zone... I would *assume* whoever did these reports were watching the top, also...

Thanks for the link, btw, but that's one of them that comes up blank on my machine. I don't know what the problem is, I have Adobe Acrobat Reader and recently updated it... I'll keep trying though..

[SDuderstadt]

68. Please explain this force....

thatshould easy, right? What force other than gravity forced the panels down?

[freedom fighter jh]

72. Tough to say. What force shot the debris outward and upward?

What force shot building fragments across the street so fast that they wedged themselves into the next building?

Most likely it was the same force in all three cases.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Which would be what?

Why can't you answer this question?

[freedom fighter jh]

77. Can't say what force it was 'cuz we don't know what brought the towers down (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

80. Actually, we do...

and there's broad agreement in the engineering community.

[freedom fighter jh]

83. All right, now please clue me in on the mystery:

Just what was this force that made some the debris fall faster than free-fall, some of it shoot upwards and some shoot outwards, on which the engineering community agrees broadly?

I understand that we've only speculated but have not proved that some debris was falling faster than free-fall. But you say you know what force caused some of the debris to move upwards and some outwards.

[SDuderstadt]

85. First of all, I'm not claiming that the debris was...

falling faster than free fall, so I don't know why you're expecting me to explain it.
As far as your second question, try reading the ASCE/BPAT study.

[freedom fighter jh]

86. I never said you claimed the debris was falling faster than freefall.

Why are you referring to something that you say the engineering community generally agrees on and then not refusing to say what it is?

The ASCE/BPAT study is an inch thick. Your reference is not an answer.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Do you have any evidence at all that....

"some force" forced the exterior panels down? If you do, please present it. Quit trying to shift the burden of proof.

[freedom fighter jh]

90. Go back and review the discussion.

I said it's a possibility. I said it's a possible explanation for why falling exterior panels were moving faster than the building was collapsing. THE EVIDENCE IS JUST WHAT YOU SAID: THE EXTERIOR PANELS WERE MOVING FASTER THAN THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING. It is also possible that this was because the building was collapsing slower than freefall. I see no reason to be sure that it was one of these things and not the other. Do you?

Again: If you're going to lean on the ASCE report, then cite a page and a paragraph, rather than referring to it vaguely.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Yeah, I do see a reason to conclude one way...

which is the debris field is also falling faster than the building. Again, if you have specific evidence of some force propelling the exterior panels downward, please present it. While you're at it, do the math and show that the exterior panels were falling faster than free-fall speed, if you can. Otherwise, this is just another futile discussion with someone based upon speculation and conjecture.

[freedom fighter jh]

92. Back up.

You said that the panels' falling faster than the debris showed that the collapse was happening slower than freefall.

I said Not so fast -- it could be that the panels fell *faster* than freefall and the collapse happened at freefall. That is, there is another possibility. I NEVER SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. I only used that possibility to point out the fallacy in your argument -- the relative speeds of the main part of the building and that falling degree do not prove that the collapse happened at a speed slower than free fall.

If you want to assert that in fact the relative speeds do show that the collapse happened at a speed slower than freefall, then it's up to you to make that case. You have not made the case yet.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Watch the videos....

time how long it takes for the exterior panels to strike the ground and do the freaking math. This is getting stupid.

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. Simple answer, SDude... there's a difference between *at* freefall speed and *near* freefall speed

the key word was essential freefall... The only "logical dilemma" is not understanding the difference between "AT" and "NEAR". I could be driving down at interstate "AT" 100mph, or at speeds "near" 100mph, which could be 96 or 98mph ... "AT" is precise, "NEAR" is vague..

However, you didn't ask that. Your question was:

"Please cite where NIST says the building section was...*near* free falling "to the ground".

The answer was:

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall"... (lots of words that *you* don't read)... "the structure below was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass."

You can read again upthread about your "NIST was only talking about ONE building, not both" because I don't want to repeat it again...

The simple fact is this: Yes, the building panels were falling AT freefall speeds, BUT... the building itself was falling at NEAR (or "essentially") freefall speed. "AT" and "NEAR" have two different meanings.

It could also be said that the panels broke away during the collapse *initiation*, but in the few seconds it took for the building section above to completely come down onto the floor below (collapse *completion*?), the panels had a head start on the rest of the structure. Try to liken it to dropping two pennies from the top of one of the towers, but counting to two between dropping the first and second penny. Which will hit first? Will the second penny catch up to the first?

If the top section came down at freefall speed, hitting the section below, which offered minimum or no resistance, and the remaining structure was unable to stop, or even slow it down, is the top part still falling in essential freefall or not?

Try a few examples of this. Drop a concrete block on a balloon. Does the balloon offer enough resistance to slow or stop the block? How about dropping a bowling ball on an egg... or even an egg on another egg? (I know, I suck at analogies)

To come closer to an answer, we also have to keep in mind that 12 *intact* stories came down on one building and 28 *intact* stories on the other one. Wouldn't we have to drop 12 or 28 eggs on top of another egg, since they're saying that each floor failed sequentially?

I don't pretend to know everything, or have all the answers. What I *do* know, however, is that I pointed in the NIST Report out what you had asked for someone to point out... so why do you disparage me for it?

PEACE!

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

69. Thank you....

so the buildings were NOT falling at free fall speed. Exactly what I stated. Jesus.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. No... You stated "Please cite where NIST says the building section was *near* free falling

"to the ground"....

*That* is what I responded to, nothing else...

Please stop distracting and trying to move the goal posts...

BTW, you never answered my question: If you dropped a penny from the top of a tower and dropped another one one or two seconds later, would they hit at the same time?

[SDuderstadt]

73. Answer to your question:

Q. If you dropped a penny from the top of a tower and dropped another one one or two seconds later, would they hit at the same time?


A. Philadelphia


Now, go away.

[Ghost in the Machine]

76. Once again, you have no intelligent answer... how shocking!

NOT!

The only thing your reply shows is the fact that you are either unable or unwilling to engage in any kind of debate. Your agenda is nothing more than to push the OTC on anyone who will listen and be suckered in. You have no concern whether you're pushing disinformation or 'factual inaccuracies', all you care about is humping the official storyline.

Welcome to the world of irrelevance. You provide nothing of substance to any conversation I've seen you in yet... your agenda of "denial and distraction" is duly noted... nothing you have to say from here on out will worthy of any credibility or relevance. Congratulations! You must be *so* proud...

Why do you want me to go away so badly? Is it because you can't handle being wrong, or because you can't handle the truth? It must really fuck with your overinflated ego to be so wrong, so many times, huh?

[SDuderstadt]

78. No, Ghost...

I want you to go away because, not only are you boring, you assume that anyone who takes issue with the "truth movement" must be "push(ing) the OCT (sic) on anyone who will listen and be suckered in". What a stupid either/or logical fallacy. Did it ever occur to you that someone could take issue with the "truth movement" without "humping the official storyline"? Please provide whatever evidence you have that I "hump the official storyline". Do you honestly presume to know a poster's state of mind, Ghost? This is what makes you such a bore. Please point to "disinformation" I have pushed and make sure to prove that I don't actually believe what I am saying.


And you can't even begin to understand why people don't want to engage with you. It's futile. Please, go away and bother someone else.

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. Why do you act like a petty, petulant child? You just showed your lack of comprehension skills again

"Please point to "disinformation" I have pushed and make sure to prove that I don't actually believe what I am saying."

Are you *that* fucking dense? Spreading disinformation could come in the form of posting things you *know* to be untrue, or spreading incorrect information that you haven't researched, or that you don't know anything about. You know, like your previous assertion that "no debris was found IN Indian Lake..." Remember that? Were you purposely spreading 'factual inaccuracies'. or were you just talking out of your ass without knowing what the fuck you're talking about?

Which is it, SDude? Do you purposely spread 'factual inaccuracies', or do you just spout off about shit you know nothing about? It's one or the other... time to 'fess up, dude...

Like I said... I've got your number and no, I won't 'go away'.

[SDuderstadt]

Actually, you will go away....

it's called "ignore". Bye, Ghost. I think you might want to consider anger management classes.

[Ghost in the Machine]

88. Yes, run and bury your head back in the sand so you're not confronted by your own lack of knowledge

and lack of comprehension. You've just promoted yourself to the mascot caricature of the OCT movement. What a joke....

You think I'm angry? Shows how little you know and how shallow your perception is. I'm actually laughing my fucking ass off at you and your ill informed, misguided train of thought. You're better than a rodeo clown show. What do you do for an encore, have poodles jump through Hula Hoops?

[SDuderstadt]

84. Actually, you will go away....

it's called "ignore". Bye, Ghost. I think you might want to consider anger management classes.

[petgoat]

103. Thinking that "la la la la I can't hear you" makes someone "go away" is classic solopsism. nt

[Realityhack]

111. I missed their message before it was deleted but....

what conversation? I looked over the OP and I can't possibly see how we can have any intelligent conversation about it.

[freedom fighter jh]

60. This isn't a porn site, SDude.

You may not share my opinion that Petgoat is making a valuable contribution, but your obscene comment only lowers the level of discussion.

Take it somewhere else.

[Make7]

105. Shall I assume...

... that you will keep us apprised of the appearance of any similar diagrams "from more authoritative sources" when they become available?

-Make7

[AZCat]

106. Man, I love this thread.

I can't wait for the next installment from our resident schematic guru.



And thanks for kicking this. :)

[petgoat]

107. AZ, your belief that the rake-on-rake sketch is irrelevant to the collapse is proof

of your engineering incompetence.

You may or may not have an engineering degree, but my bet is that you work for the government.

Thanks, guys, for featuring my work! As one who's reluctant to toot my own horn, I can always
use help to promote my ideas.

[AZCat]

115. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

I'm happy that you think so little of my engineering skills. That must mean I'm a kick-ass engineer! (I'll tell my boss - maybe he'll give me a raise)

[Realityhack]

120. "my bet is that you work for the government."

You been feeling a bit paranoid lately?

[SDuderstadt]

121. Is your implication here that "government workers" are....

incompetent? Forgive me for saying so, but isn't that a GOP meme?

[petgoat]

108. Assume makes an ass out of you and me

I reveal more authoritative sources when it pleases me, and not before.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Wouldn't you have to actually find authoritative sources first?

And, speaking of "assume makes an ass out of you and me", I haven't heard that since grade school. Is this what you were referring to upthread when you were talking about "asocial juveniles"?

[petgoat]

118. What makes you think I haven't? nt

[SDuderstadt]

119. Because you never post them n/t

[petgoat]

124. Why should I waste them on those who can't see the obvious significance in rake on rake? nt

[AZCat]

125. The "obvious significance" isn't what you think it is. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

128. The only one who sees the "obvious significance" of the rake is....

you, Petgoat. The rest of us are laughing our asses off at your silly ramblings.

[LARED]

130. The only obvious issue is the

fantasy world you have created where you actually think your stick figures represents an important statement. My advice is seek professional help.

[Make7]

133. I thought it was a reasonable conjecture.

You seemed willing enough to "toot" your own horn by predicting that diagrams similar to your own would appear from "more authoritative sources". I thought you would probably also be willing to "toot" your own horn if your prediction were to actually come true.

Perhaps you simply do not wish to "toot" your own horn anymore regarding this matter.

-Make7

[petgoat]

136. WTC7 work puts twin tower work on hold these days nt

[Laurier]

131. This probably qualifies for nomination in the "weirdest DU thread ever" competition.

Seriously, how very, very strange.

[Realityhack]

132. I thought this forum WAS the "weirdest DU thread ever" competition. n/t

[smiley]

147. yep

because of Petgoat, lared, & greyl.. plus many more disinformers.... it is the weirdest. They've done their job.

[William Seger]

134. The "rake-on-rake" analogy...

... would probably be somewhat useful, if you could understand what happens when you jam them together and the tines break off. That would actually be closer to what happened in the WTC towers, mostly, rather than crushing all the columns to their buckling point.

[petgoat]

137. Finally after almost four months, somebody makes some effort to address the point.

:"what happens when you jam them together"


A rake is not a hammer. You'll break a few tines if they're reed
(if they're steel, they just bend) and friction absorbs the kinetic
energy.

[William Seger]

139. "A rake is not a hammer."

Well, gee PG, that's kinda where your analogy starts to fall apart, ya know? Ten floors of WTC tower is not a rake, either.

[petgoat]

141. Ten floors of WTC tower more resembles a rake than it does a piledriver.

And yet the latter absurd analogy drives NIST's assumption that
total progressive collapse was inevitable.

[William Seger]

150. I'll have to take your word for it...

... that that analogy makes sense to people who don't understand dynamic forces. However, that belief is not relevant to anything in the real world: Gravity works whether you believe in it or not.

[petgoat]

151. Are you suggesting that dynamic forces don't apply to rakes?

Your post makes no sense.

Nobody said gravity doesn't exist. But the notion that the top fifteen floors
of the building suddenly leaped 3.7 meters straight down to hammer the rest of
the tower into pulp is as absurd as thinking that a severed windpipe would cause
my skull to pulverize the rest of my body.

[William Seger]

152. Proof positive...

... that you don't understand dynamic forces. And you don't understand structures and what happens to them when structural integrity is lost, either. But we've been through that many times, and discussing anything with you is a total waste of time. Your rake analogy is nothing but the laughable embodiment of your ignorance, but you think it's proof that Bazant, Greening, and all the other people who have done calculations are accessories after the fact to murder. If anybody still takes you seriously, they aren't paying attention.

[petgoat]

153. Your desperation is showing, Will.

I understand dynamic loads and structures better than you do,
because unlike you I understand them in a real-world context.
I don't just accept the official lies because some desperate
over-mortgaged asshole has a PhD.

When structural integrity is lost, the top portion of the
tower ceases to resemble a piledriver, or even a rake.
It resembles nothing but a birdsnest, trying to demolish a
fencepole.

[William Seger]

154. Uh-huh, I bet you tested in the 99th percentile in "real world dynamic loads and structures," huh

This little puzzle should be trivial for you, then: If something falls 12 feet, what is it's impact force expressed in Gs? (Hint: You only need to know or estimate one other number, and it isn't the mass.)

In addition to having some understanding of the physics involved -- something I've never seen you demonstrate -- I've mentioned before what my real-world context is for the WTC collapses, petgoat: The first time I heard the term "pancake collapse" was in 1973, when half of a Skyline Towers building (up to an expansion joint) collapsed while under construction near Baileys Crossroads, Va. It collapsed top down when shoring was removed under the 24th floor before the concrete was fully cured. But the dynamic impact of that single floor destroyed the fully cured 23rd floor, and their combined mass took out the next floor, and so on all the way down to the subbasement. In the WTC towers, we had 10 floors and 26 floors falling on the floor below.

At the time, I was working as a structural draftsman for an architectural/engineering firm a few miles away in Alexandria, so I got to hear quite a bit of technical discussion among the structural engineers. Most of the discussion centered on why the 24th floor collapsed; what happened after that seemed fairly obvious to them. In their real world, it seems, very few buildings are designed to stop a pancake collapse. They're designed to support their normal working loads plus a safety factor, under normal conditions, which presupposes an intact structure (e.g. beams and floors supporting columns laterally).

In fact, the real world literature has many such examples, while in your "real world" such things can't happen because it's like a "birdsnest, trying to demolish a fencepole." In your "real world," you understand how structures respond to that kind of disaster better than structural engineers.

Your "real world" simply doesn't orbit the same sun as mine, petgoat.

[petgoat]

155. We were talking about the entire top of the building

Bazant's assumption that the entire top of the building fell 12 feet, imposing
dynamic loads, is absurd.

Your pancaking concrete floors have nothing to do with that. It's irrelevant
to the collapse of the towers because obviously at Skyline the entire floor fell
as a unit. There is no way from asymmetrical structural damage and asymmetrical
fires to get entire floors at the WTC falling as a unit.

My "birdsnest on a fencepole" model is an accurate picture of the effect of a
disorganized mass of debris on the robust and extensively cross-braced core.

I do not claim to understand how structures respond to disaster better than
structural engineers do. Note that the government engineers never explained
how the buildings collapsed. They created a computer model that generated
some sort of collapse, and then they assumed that since the building underwent
total progressive collapse, that an asymmetrical, localized, partial collapse
somehow brought the entire building down.

[William Seger]

156. You didn't answer my puzzle question

If fact, the answer is very relevant to what were discussing. It would be a start in understanding what's wrong with your "birdsnest" analogy.

> "My "birdsnest on a fencepole" model is an accurate picture of the effect of a disorganized mass of debris on the robust and extensively cross-braced core."

Uh-huh, except for the fact that it was wasn't a "disorganized" mass -- it was all headed downward in a tight clump that was being compacted by each collision -- and the core was not extensively cross-based. It was, however, pretty strong. Why? Because it was carrying a massive weight! And that's the same massive weight that fell on it! That's precisely why most buildings are susceptible to "pancaking": they simply aren't designed to absorb a dynamic load that is far beyond their normal working load. Pretty damn simple, really.

> "Note that the government engineers never explained how the buildings collapsed."

A typically disingenuous petgoat statement. That's correct; neither Bazant nor Green nor any of the various other people who have done collapse analyses I'm aware of are government engineers.

If you want to continue this, please answer the puzzle question.

[petgoat]

157. The SAME massive weight? Your argument fails right there.

Most of the mass of the towers was outside the core. But the core was built to take
the gravity loads, with a substantial safety factor.

Bazant does not explain how the towers collapsed. His piledriver is a total fantasy,
given the lie by video evidence that shows that the alleged piledriver came apart and
turned to dust before the collapse under the impact zone started.

[William Seger]

158. Still no answer?

If you could answer that simple question, you would see why even in the best case -- i.e. all the columns dropping straight down and hitting the corresponding columns below -- the building would have collapsed. Bazant's analysis is intentionally a simplified model of the collapse, which shows why the building could not have resisted the collapse even in that best possible case. But you don't understand even the simplest aspect of the physics of the simplest case.

And you cannot understand why what actually happened was much worse -- why the columns wouldn't need to be crushed if the floors and beams that held them vertical were broken loose. Instead of even trying to understand how the falling tops mainly ripped the buildings apart at their structural connections, you fantasize about birds nests and rakes for absolutely no other reason than to keep your "controlled demolition" delusion alive, despite not having a single shred of credible evidence.

So all you've got is an idle claim that you understand the situation better than a guy who writes structural engineering textbooks and peer reviewed articles, and a totally bizarre, idiotic, clearly counter-factual and easily disproved claim that the tops turned to dust before they fell. And you've got your silly drawings, of course.

I guess that about covers it, then, and I don't see any need to hear the same bullshit over and over and over. If you can't even answer my simple question, I won't be replying again in this thread.

[petgoat]

159. That's not the best case, it's the worst case. Completely unrealistic, total fantasy.

Don't tell me what I don't understand. You don't know what you're talking about.

[AZCat]

160. What you don't understand isn't the problem.

It's your refusal to accept your limitations that is.

[petgoat]

161. Pray tell, what falling pancakes tore down the floors in the core?

How did a disorganized birds nest tear down the core? The steel debris would
lodge in the matrix, its energy absorbed by frictional forces.

Any natural collapse should have left 600 feet of core standing--which might
then have toppled onto adjacent buildings, which is why the core had to be
cut up into little pieces.

[LARED]

140. There was a point to this OP other than someday someone will appreciate my

sketches?

I've reread the OP a few times and I still can find no other point than "gee look at my pictures?"

Imagine the luck of stumbling upon your point by accident.

[petgoat]

149. The point is: a rake is not a hammer nt

[Occam Bandage]

135. This is even better than chicken wire.

[Realityhack]

138. I don't know. Chicken wire was pretty epic. n/t

[petgoat]

142. Chicken wire is a better metaphor for the lightly built top portion of the tower

than is the piledriver that Bazant imagines it to be.

[SDuderstadt]

143. At first I thought this was the funniest thing you've ever said....

and then I realized you're actually being serious. You never fail to amuse, PG.

[petgoat]

144. Do you know how thick the walls of the columns were at the upper levels, Sid? nt

[smiley]

146. yep

because of Petgoat, lared, & greyl.. plus many more disinformers.... it is the weirdest. They've done their job.

[SDuderstadt]

148. "Disinformers"....

LOLOLOL

[jberryhill]

162. Is it time yet?

What "more authoritative sources" have published diagrams which look like those?

[LARED]

163. To bad PG was tombstoned.

He/she was always interesting.

[jberryhill]

164. Aww.. hadn't noticed

I feel like I should go lay flowers or something. PG was always the "thinking man's truther".

[Make7]

165. Well, I'll be damned...

 

[LARED]

166. Very funny - nt

[AZCat]

167. Yes, but...

since we all know ASCE is an organization that shills for the Bush Administration (still in power even though they're not) how does this affect petgoat's work? Is it no longer considered valid by the "truth movement" since it has been co-opted by the nefarious ASCE?