28-09-2013, 11:32 AM
Magda Hassan Wrote:The trouble with this is it is from the Randi forum which is hardly a source of good verification. Un-named sources spouting shit. Is there nothing more substantial from an academic source? Or more trustworthy than the Randi forum? Something that you can use to refute Tony's hypothesis?
Magda,
You are refusing to accept well reasoned arguments because they are not published? Or associated with an academic institution? This is little more than hiding behind an appeal to authority argument. LOOK AT THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENTS, not who makes them.
If you know the history of science, you know that the accepted truth was continually overturned by some outsider such as Galileo. And of course his ideas were rejected by the establishment at the time.
One problem with the "science" of the destruction of the WTC is that the burden of proof for something other than the collapse caused by mechanical damage on unfought fires is on those who claim it was not possible. As noted the event was very complex and spanned an period of time. It was not a singular event like a nuclear bomb explosion. It was a process which I have tried to explain. Yet it is impossible, because of the complexity and the lack of specific data to describe each contributing factor in any specificity. We get all sorts of models and isolated examples of processes.
ROOSD is was identified based on the mapping of the visual data and driven by the notion that any floor system when over stressed collapses. IT IS NOT A COLUMN CRUSHING. The concept HAS been presented in engineering journals but not with the acronym...because the twin tower DESIGN was very susceptible to this sort of failure of the floor plates once the threshold mass descended on them. Once started it would continue until there were no floors left and it had consequences for the columns. They succumbed to Euler buckling forces and toppled from "instability".
NIST seems to have gotten the explanation wrong but identified the basic contributing factors which eroded the strength and led to the collapse. The got the wrong straw which broke the camel's back (I think). Why? I don't know
The three towers were VERY unique structural systems
They had extensive fires which were not fought. FDNY WAS concerned that 7 would collapse and withdraw their people from the building and set up an evacuation zone around the building. You either believe this as genuine assessment or you jump into through the looking glass and believe that someone was going to set off a CD.
Heat DOES weaken steel. It doesn't have to melt it to make it fail in its structural roll. We don't know the precise information about the fires and heat. We know the fires and heat were not fought. We also know that steel is typically protected against fire with applied spray on protection. It is safe to assume that some amount of it was dislodged when the plane struck and caused havoc over several floors throwing all manner of materials all over the place. Protected steel might resist fire for 2 hrs (typically) Unprotected steel is another story.
There is little to no study that I am aware of about the performance of the framing connections. FEMA suspected that they may have failed BEFORE the steel and suggested in 2002 that NIST study the connections. NIST did not.
NIST's work leaves much to be desired. But to most the proximate causes of mechanical damage, un fought fires and unprotected steel could lead to frame failures and global collapse.
Explosions seem to be a gray area. There were electrical explosions in all the towers because they had massive oil cooled electrical equipment. 7WTC appears to have experience multiple transformer/electrical equipment explosions (twins did as well) which likely dislodged insulation and started extensive fires of stored fuel and building contents and materials. We simply don't know the extent of this cause but it cannot and should not be dismissed.
All bombs are explosions, but not all explosions are bombs.
This towers has many energized transformers... and 7 sat above one of the most massive power sub stations in NYC and had 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel on premises (thank to Guiliani).
Con Ed Transformer Explosion Hurricane Sandy - New York City - YouTube
Electricity has such amazing power - Compliation - YouTube
Transformer Explodes - YouTube
Transformer Explosion Hurricane Sandy, Cliffside Park NJ - YouTube
Transformer fire and explosion cause blue flames - YouTube
Hurricane Sandy: Transformer explodes in Westchester NY - YouTube
Could the official explanations be avoiding discussion of something else?