Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 01:40 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 01:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Or, you could admit you lied about what calculations were made.

I brought evidence: the words of the chief engineer himself. Out of his own mouth. On camera.

You brought... assertions.

Edit to Add: I have no reason to debate you on this unless you are willing to demonstrate a basic level of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

I have no reason to continue proving your and everyone else's errors. You can not deny I've done a good deal of that. Correcting other people's mistakes.

But if you want. I will disprove your chief engineer.

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but NIST could not locate the documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis"

And then there's the 767 being fully loaded with fuel, it only had 10,000 gallons of fuel, a far cry from having 24,000 that is the maximum for any type of 767.

"At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots)[22] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board."

And then for the fuel load not being considered, he admits to the best of his knowledge that it wasn't considered. IE meaning, he doesn't know if it was or wasn't. Given how many YEARS ago that was, he could have very easily have forgotten the finer details of the plan.

And then he compares the fuel loads which is actually again. Wrong. the fuel loads of the 707 and the 767 match accordingly. Even the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Specifications gallons could match the 10,000 gallons the 767s had on them that day.

That's three errors for your engineer and one error for you.

(25-01-2017 11:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.

(25-01-2017 12:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The impact was the primary contributor to the conditions that did bring down the tower, though. Are you being willfully dishonest?

You replied to what you yourself said... because of a quotation error. ONE ERROR FOR CELESTIAL WONDER! But seriously though Rocket, you didn't even notice that... soo... another error for you as well. I would haphazard to say that... this indicates that I am more observant than you are. I would almost never use asterisks around a word. Also that I didn't remember writing it because I didn't write it, and you didn't remember writing it even though you did write it.

Only errors here are the ones you made by believing in this BS in the first place.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
25-01-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 01:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Or, you could admit you lied about what calculations were made.

I brought evidence: the words of the chief engineer himself. Out of his own mouth. On camera.

You brought... assertions.

Edit to Add: I have no reason to debate you on this unless you are willing to demonstrate a basic level of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

I have no reason to continue proving your and everyone else's errors. You can not deny I've done a good deal of that. Correcting other people's mistakes.

But if you want. I will disprove your chief engineer.

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but NIST could not locate the documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis"

And then there's the 767 being fully loaded with fuel, it only had 10,000 gallons of fuel, a far cry from having 24,000 that is the maximum for any type of 767.

"At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots)[22] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board."

And then for the fuel load not being considered, he admits to the best of his knowledge that it wasn't considered. IE meaning, he doesn't know if it was or wasn't. Given how many YEARS ago that was, he could have very easily have forgotten the finer details of the plan.

And then he compares the fuel loads which is actually again. Wrong. the fuel loads of the 707 and the 767 match accordingly. Even the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Specifications gallons could match the 10,000 gallons the 767s had on them that day.

That's three errors for your engineer and one error for you.
What is your profession?

I was Licensed as a Professional Engineer in 1993, and continue to be so.

If you want to debate building collapse, then let's go.

I have a pet peeve for conspiracy theorists with no training, education, experience or background presuming to instruct the rest of us in the mechanics of structural failure, and who can't just allow the victims of this tragedy to grieve this incident for what it is - the result of a terrorist attack by terrorists, in an unprecedented and practically inconceivable method of offense, for which there was at the time, a limited defensive strategy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like JHaysPE's post
25-01-2017, 02:05 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:40 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I have no reason to continue proving your and everyone else's errors. You can not deny I've done a good deal of that. Correcting other people's mistakes.

But if you want. I will disprove your chief engineer.

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but NIST could not locate the documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis"

And then there's the 767 being fully loaded with fuel, it only had 10,000 gallons of fuel, a far cry from having 24,000 that is the maximum for any type of 767.

"At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots)[22] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board."

And then for the fuel load not being considered, he admits to the best of his knowledge that it wasn't considered. IE meaning, he doesn't know if it was or wasn't. Given how many YEARS ago that was, he could have very easily have forgotten the finer details of the plan.

And then he compares the fuel loads which is actually again. Wrong. the fuel loads of the 707 and the 767 match accordingly. Even the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Specifications gallons could match the 10,000 gallons the 767s had on them that day.

That's three errors for your engineer and one error for you.



You replied to what you yourself said... because of a quotation error. ONE ERROR FOR CELESTIAL WONDER! But seriously though Rocket, you didn't even notice that... soo... another error for you as well. I would haphazard to say that... this indicates that I am more observant than you are. I would almost never use asterisks around a word. Also that I didn't remember writing it because I didn't write it, and you didn't remember writing it even though you did write it.

Only errors here are the ones you made by believing in this BS in the first place.

Wrong it is not bullshit, it is a conspiracy theory.

one error for you Jdog.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 02:07 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:42 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  What is your profession?

I was Licensed as a Professional Engineer in 1993, and continue to be so.

If you want to debate building collapse, then let's go.

I have a pet peeve for conspiracy theorists with no training, education, experience or background presuming to instruct the rest of us in the mechanics of structural failure, and who can't just allow the victims of this tragedy to grieve this incident for what it is - the result of a terrorist attack by terrorists, in an unprecedented and practically inconceivable method of offense, for which there was at the time, a limited defensive strategy.

HA! is that all you got? A license as a professional engineer back in 1993?

In 1993 I was licensed as a professional diaper shitter.

Which means I can make just as much shit as you can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 02:08 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 02:12 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 02:05 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Wrong it is not bullshit, it is a conspiracy theory.

one error for you Jdog.

No, C_W, is not a 'Theory'. It's still just an 'Hypothesis' on your part.

+1 for Peebothuhul Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 02:19 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:49 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Except they didn't calculate the impact of a 707 at 600mph. They presumed that any aircraft hitting the tower would be flying slowly (not even cruise speed) at that altitude, perhaps lost in fog, low on fuel and seeking to land at one of the two nearby airports. There is no other scenario in which planes fully loaded with fuel would be recently taken-off and headed at full throttle into the towers.

They did actually another error for you rocket.

Quote:Secondly, the calculations for the impact of the 707s did not take into account-- as no one, prior to the 1975 fires could-- how intense a structure fire could be on a building of that size. They simply calculated whether or not the impact would bring down the towers.

They didn't even have a sprinkler system before 1975...

Quote:The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.


The continuing fire from internal flammable materials, in addition to the fuel's initially very intense burn, is what did the job. The damage from the impact of a 767 at 500+ mph was intense enough to blow clean through the building, shredding entire stairwells, water pipelines, and pretty much everything else it met, and to explode out the far side of the building. [Image: 9-11-attacks-twin-towers.png]

Only intense enough from the fuselage itself, and maybe an engine or two. Its damage to the other side was limited. And as for the explosion, that's a result of the fuel. which would have done less damage to the concrete lining the beams.

Quote:In the case of Building 7, such internal fires alone were enough to bring down the smaller skyscraper, though impact from falling debris and internal diesel fuel tanks did contribute a little to the collapse.
very puny fires.

Quote:While the bomb in 1993 did quite a bit of structural damage to the concrete floors-- on the bottom floors-- it was not even close in terms of damage done to the structure, nor was it accompanied by a fire of remotely similar power. And even then, major and very rapid work had to be done because of the damage to the retaining walls that held back the river water, as well as a number of structural members. The '93 bombers failed because their goal was to try to damage vertical structural columns in order to get one tower to topple into the other, bringing both down. That, as we have been saying, was not possible-- even the aircraft impact did not damage the vertical structural members to that point, which is why the collapse we see was the "pancaking" of floors breaking away from the vertical supports and falling onto the ones below, and triggering collapse because the vertical columns buckled once bereft of their lateral support.

You are comparing apples and oranges, in several ways.

Mate, mate, mate. In 1975 they didn't even have a sprinkler system in the twin towers, and it survived that fire. Secondly here's why the pancaking theory doesn't work in laymans terms. We can see both towers tipping when they begin to collapse, at least above the impact area. Both of them. Now they are going to continue going to the path of least resistance, which isn't straight down.

(25-01-2017 11:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it can't. That's why there are different words.

You are a moron.

test

Grammatical error for you Chas.

(25-01-2017 11:37 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Ohmyfuckinggod.

"Sea level" refers to air pressure (14.7 psi, or 1013.20 hPa), not altitude. It's also dependent on temperature.

Also, first year physics: force = mass x acceleration

While the increase in speed may be 11% (I haven't checked the math but I'll give you that) that's only one component in the amount of force. A 767 weighs more than a car. As well, the difference in speed (acceleration) is 60 mph. Multiply that by the mass of the aircraft and you're going to get huge numbers.

Newton's Second Law, my friend.

You're so not right, you're not even wrong.

Done here. (I know, I said that before, but some assertions made by C_W here are so off the mark that they can't be ignored.)

See this is another perfect example of what it means to be synonymous Chas. And Heath, the sea level thing was a joke.

First, they are not synonyms in that context.

You said "Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers...". No tests were conducted.

Leslie Robertson, the chief mechanical engineer for the WTC design, "took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 02:23 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report."

Ain't that a bitch?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 02:25 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 02:05 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 01:40 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Only errors here are the ones you made by believing in this BS in the first place.

Wrong it is not bullshit, it is a conspiracy theory.

one error for you Jdog.

D in my username is capitalized. One error for you.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 02:49 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 02:23 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report."

Ain't that a bitch?

Calculations - not tests, bitch. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 04:36 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 01:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Or, you could admit you lied about what calculations were made.

I brought evidence: the words of the chief engineer himself. Out of his own mouth. On camera.

You brought... assertions.

Edit to Add: I have no reason to debate you on this unless you are willing to demonstrate a basic level of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

I have no reason to continue proving your and everyone else's errors. You can not deny I've done a good deal of that. Correcting other people's mistakes.

I actually haven't seen you correct anyone's mistakes. What I have seen you do is play definition word-games, or completely misrepresent (straw-man) other people's arguments. Repeatedly. You're just impervious to this realization because you're so arrogant and/or defensive.

(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But if you want. I will disprove your chief engineer.

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but NIST could not locate the documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis"

The New Jersey Port Authority examined a full-speed impact, the NIST says. Except there's only an oblique reference to the study in another document, and no one can find the original study. They specifically say that no documentary evidence of this study was found, only a reference to it. However, assuming it did exist, the study was not wrong... the tower did survive the impact of a 767 moving at 600mph. (As I have said repeatedly.)

But you can't leave out that the very next thing the NIST says is that the Port Authority study didn't consider the combined/collateral damage from the ongoing fires ignited by the high-intensity fuel burn... because there was literally no way to study such a thing in 1964. (References on PDF file pages 15-17.)

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files...uction.pdf

Or as NIST put it:

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-to...estigation

You should read that second page. They do a pretty good job of explaining methodologies and debunking your conspiracy hypotheses.

(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And then there's the 767 being fully loaded with fuel, it only had 10,000 gallons of fuel, a far cry from having 24,000 that is the maximum for the most capable of 767s.

"At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots)[22] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board."

And then for the fuel load not being considered, he admits to the best of his knowledge that it wasn't considered. IE meaning, he doesn't know if it was or wasn't. Given how many YEARS ago that was, he could have very easily have forgotten the finer details of the plan.

And then he compares the fuel loads which is actually again. Wrong. the fuel loads of the 707 and the 767 match accordingly. Even the 13,000 gallons of the 707 with the smallest fuel tank could match the 10,000 gallons the 767s had on them that day.

That's three errors for your engineer and one error for you.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

He says, "...it was a fully fueled airplane, compared to the 707 which was a landing airplane".

He's describing the specific 707 in the study he and his crew did, which was set up as (as he called it) a "landing" aircraft, traveling at relatively slow speed and low on fuel. He then compares it to the specific 767s that struck the towers, which were fully fueled and traveling at high velocity. More weight, more speed, than the plane in his modeling.

I'm flabbergasted that you're so arrogant that you think you're smarter than the chief engineer of a project that size. Wow. Just... wow.

(25-01-2017 01:29 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 11:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.

(25-01-2017 12:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The impact was the primary contributor to the conditions that did bring down the tower, though. Are you being willfully dishonest?

You replied to what you yourself said... because of a quotation error on my part. ONE ERROR FOR CELESTIAL WONDER! But seriously though Rocket, you didn't even notice that... soo... another error for you as well. I would haphazard to say that... this indicates that I am more observant than you are. I would almost never use asterisks around a word. Also that I didn't remember writing it because I didn't write it, and you didn't remember writing it even though you did write it.

I thought you were mocking my style of writing. I had called something you said irrelevant, and you were returning in kind by saying my point was irrelevant, which would have been a stupid reply. You frequently do this when you're answering others. *shrug*

But fine, I'll accept it as an error on my part. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm incorrect, and I'm not keeping some kind of idiotic score card.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: