deirdre
Senior Member.
then why aren't you having this discussion with him?It's the popularization of his ideas, with a focus on 9/11/WTC that I'm imagining.
then why aren't you having this discussion with him?It's the popularization of his ideas, with a focus on 9/11/WTC that I'm imagining.
That much agreed. Which answers your primary OP questions......Like I say, a book by a qualified science writer to sort the wheat from the chaff in all of this would just be nice. It doesn't exist. And early on in this thread, that's basically what you and everyone tried to explain to me -- it doesn't exist
Some have said that. Definitely NOT "everyone". I certainly do not agree "all there in the NIST report". I have specifically agreed with your need for a laymans version book INCLUDING your opinion that NIST is not appropriate......you and everyone tried to explain to me -- .... there's no need for it because it's all there in the NIST report.
BUT ONLY when subjected to gross trauma an order of magnitude greater than designed for. The WTC buildings were STRUCTURALLY more than adequately designed.The buildings succumbed to a "progressive" collapse... because their designs had features which lend themselves to progressive collapse.
This falls outside the scope of Thomas B's claims - he has already agreed that the NIST explanations don't meet his requirement. PLUS you are confusing two distinct issues.Re the NIST report.
They had the largest data set but their theories though possible were not convincing to me. I thought "global collapse" was a huge cop out and this was something "every-man" would need help with.
It once again sounds like you've taken offence so I want to be clear that I'd be pushing for a popular book with a major publisher even if Leslie Robertson or Shyam Sunder or Uwe Starossek were explaining their views to me on this forum using their real names. I'm sure you're smart people and, as I keep saying, I am (slowly) learning things. But this is just not the most efficient way to make make people comfortable with the physics of 9/11. It takes way too much patience and concentration (and thick skin) from all of us.All of which is true despite all of us being mere amateurs who do no meet Thomas B's criteria as "authoritative".
The buildings succumbed to a "progressive" collapse... because their designs had features which lend themselves to progressive collapse. Empire State Building has features which would mitigate against progressive collapse - common grid w/ bolted / riveted connections for starters.
I think a detailed comparison of WTC and ESB would be really useful if what Jeffrey is saying is true. The thought experiment in which the top 20 or 30 floors are shifted half-a-column off (or dropped half-a-floor onto) the bottom section could be carried through on simplified models of the structures.BUT ONLY when subjected to gross trauma an order of magnitude greater than designed for. The WTC buildings were STRUCTURALLY more than adequately designed.
PS. Another instructive comparison would actually be the pyramids. These are, I take it, much stronger than the WTC in the relevant sense. (Dropping the upper third on the lower two-thirds wouldn't completely destroy a pyramid.) But they are also much less efficient uses of (much weaker) material. I imagine it would be structurally impossible (and certainly unwise) to build a megalith of solid limestone 1300 x 400 x 400 feet. It would be even less possible to make room for over 100 floors of office space within it. So working through how steel lets you accomplish something like the structural strength of a pyramid (though of course without their ridiculous safety factor) might explain to the lay reader where the threshold is reached and you end up with a building that is likely to behave like the WTC under conditions like 9/11. (I bring this up because, if @Jeffrey Orling is right, that efficiency threshold was not reached with the Empire State Building.)I think a detailed comparison of WTC and ESB would be really useful if what Jeffrey is saying is true.
You misconstrue what I am suggesting.BUT ONLY when subjected to gross trauma an order of magnitude greater than designed for. The WTC buildings were STRUCTURALLY more than adequately designed.
This falls outside the scope of Thomas B's claims - he has already agreed that the NIST explanations don't meet his requirement. PLUS you are confusing two distinct issues.
1) "global collapse" is NOT the "cop out". There is zero doubt among members here that all three WTC Towers did in reality totally or globally collapse.
2)The concern you refer to is the NIST claim to the effect that "from that stage global collapse was INEVITABLE". It referred to the "progression" stage of collapse and is accepted that global collapse was in fact inevitable once the Top Blocks started to bodily move downwards. Whether or not NIST correctly understood why it was true when they said it. The main reason shown by this graphic of mine from Nov 2007....
... introduced into mainstream on-line 9/11 debate labeled "ROOSD" from 2009. And that same point of applied physics demonstrated by Mick West's models linked earlier in the thread.
All of which is true despite all of us being mere amateurs who do no meet Thomas B's criteria as "authoritative".
Not so. Just my sense of humour in face of the frustration of your circling the debate. Hence the emoticon.It once again sounds like you've taken offence .....
PS. Another instructive comparison would actually be the pyramids. These are, I take it, much stronger than the WTC in the relevant sense. (Dropping the upper third on the lower two-thirds wouldn't completely destroy a pyramid.) But they are also much less efficient uses of (much weaker) material. I imagine it would be structurally impossible (and certainly unwise) to build a megalith of solid limestone 1300 x 400 x 400 feet. It would be even less possible to make room for over 100 floors of office space within it. So working through how steel lets you accomplish something like the structural strength of a pyramid (though of course without their ridiculous safety factor) might explain to the lay reader where the threshold is reached and you end up with a building that is likely to behave like the WTC under conditions like 9/11. (I bring this up because, if @Jeffrey Orling is right, that efficiency threshold was not reached with the Empire State Building.)
PPS. This relates back to what I said about the movie that @Mendel mentioned: At one point the narrator tells us that "the efficiency of the design meant that with any major element removed the whole structure would fall."
The precise mechanisms in play are somewhat uncertain. But the various ways structures.... or their components fail IS settled science and engineering. So we DO know how steel behaves when heated... same with concrete, glass, GWB, aluminum and various types of connections used to tie structures' materials together into a "composite?Not so. Just my sense of humour in face of the frustration of your circling the debate. Hence the emoticon.
I repeat my advice - I recommend that you learn the details of the collapse mechanism that would be most of the topic of your book. Don't remain in ignorance whilst waiting for the book. I'll respond to your next post and give you several examples of why "undestanding the topic" would save a lot of discussion.
Many (if not most) details are not known... and you know this. What is known is the structural design... the measurements of movement/deformation caused by the plane strikes which is visible and the movement of building parts as the fire progressed. Of course there is visual evidence of smoke and some fire. But most of the "details" can only be assumed based on engineering and materials science.Not so. Just my sense of humour in face of the frustration of your circling the debate. Hence the emoticon.
I repeat my advice - I recommend that you learn the details of the collapse mechanism that would be most of the topic of your book. Don't remain in ignorance whilst waiting for the book. I'll respond to your next post and give you several examples of why "undestanding the topic" would save a lot of discussion.
The principle issue is whether or not the structure would fail catastrophically if subjected to gross overload. Be clear on what that means. All buildings are designed to remain safe when subjected to an envelope of likely extreme loadings AND a margin for "safety". It is neither practical nor economically feasible to design for loadings grossly in excess of the likely anticipated peak loads. Put simplistically - should all buildings be designed for 10 times the likely loading "just n case".... Obviously not THENI think a detailed comparison of WTC and ESB would be really useful if what Jeffrey is saying is true.
IF you want a thought experiment it would be better to base one on the actual details of the relevant WTC collapse. For the Twin towers neither "shifted half-a-column off" or "dropped half-a-floor onto" were parts of the actual mechanisms. In fact "dropped some distance onto" was one of the biggest causes of false reasoning over many years. And models are only useful IF (a) You know what you are modelling; (b) you can in fact model it and (c) the model actually makes the mechanism clearer than words or pictures. Both b and c usually limiting given the complexities of most parts of the WTC collapse mechnaisms. Note the dangerous word "SIMPLIFIED" models >> risky. Very dificult to make simplified models that are valid for complex bits of mechanismThe thought experiment in which the top 20 or 30 floors are shifted half-a-column off (or dropped half-a-floor onto) the bottom section could be carried through on simplified models of the structures.
Sorry but there is near zero chance of EITHER getting a truther to state specifically what they "expected" OR ~19 years history says it is futile to expect truthers clams to be resolved.If it is true that the ESB would not be totally destroyed by this, then it would be demonstrating something like the behavior that truthers expected of the WTC. So the puzzle is resolved by identifying the points on which the structures differ (yes, perhaps the "common grid w/ bolted / riveted connections for starters," as Jeffrey suggests.)
Both those sets of speculations are meaningless UNTIL you (or "we") put them properly in the context of a rational design philosophy as per my first comments in this post.It is usually said that the WTC used a very "efficient" structural design. But this is often understood (or I at least normally understand it) to mean that it was just as strong as, or stronger than, existing skyscrapers, using less material, labor, and time in its construction. If the comparison ends up showing that WTC was uniquely (or specifically) vulnerable to total progressive ("runaway") collapse then this would certainly help square our understanding of 9/11 with our physics intuitions.
It would, however, raise the question of how such a design, which produced a building that was (in what turned out to be an important sense) weaker than the otherwise "less efficient" Empire State Building, got approved. Another interesting part of the story.
Comparing NIST to the Rodger Commission? There was no decision to launch the collapse. Did UBL expect the towers to collapse, I doubt it. Had UBL studied the friable insulation, and wallboard in the core, did knew the speeds at impact (1600 to 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts) which resulted in compromised fire insulation in the towers cores, and under the floors. How are NIST reports on the WTC complex like the Rodgers Commission for what you are trying to imply.We know everything that a government agency wants us to know about an investigation it was commissioned to do. In the case of the Rogers Commission, by contrast, we also know what journalists and other researchers learned through their own inquiries.
There are a lot of openly available materials about the process of the NIST investigation. The process itself was indeed pretty transparent, with public presentations along the way. The advisory board meetings were also open to the public (I remember listening in on some of them) and there are minutes.
What we are missing is any independent, journalistic interest in and curiosity about these materials. We are assuming that both NIST and the original architects/engineers of the buildings did a good and thorough job.
But people on this forum seem undecided (or in disagreement) about whether the WTC buildings behaved "normally," i.e., as one would expect any tall building to behave, or were uniquely (but understandably) vulnerable to total collapse under the circumstances of 9/11. An issue like this came up in one of those advisory board meetings:
What I'm missing is the media coverage of the follow-up on these points. If investigators were questioning how buildings are designed in America, then either those questions were answered, or design practices changed, or a bit of both. But surely it's all interesting stuff -- for both the engineers who design buildings and the public that uses them.
It's fine to refer me back to the totality of materials NIST published on the collapses and their own investigations. But that doesn't help the public. Someone needs to represent the public's curiosity about this, and their (fully warranted) concerns about the safety of tall buildings.
One question I keep asking (mostly myself, and have never found an answer to) is what the Chicago FD would do if a 767 crashed into the Aon Center. Would they expect it to collapse within an hour or two because of its design similarities with the WTC towers? I think that question itself would be a nice hook for the whole book I'm imagining. (Or choose some closer structural analogue if it exists.)
In the NIST advisory board meeting minutes that I quoted from before (with the wrong link, I just realized; thanks Keith) there's an exchange about whether buildings like WTC7 are expected to remain standing:There are few to no commercial buildings designed or should I say.... over designed to withstand excessive "conditions".. like hardened "bunkers". This would be wasteful and too expensive. The life safety issues are handled with egress strategies... getting people quickly and safely out of harm's way.
So there's an interesting story here about science catching up with reality to understand how buildings can be designed to meet previously "implicit assumptions" about what would happen in the event that fires cannot be controlled and keep going until they run out of fuel. In that sense, it seems, WTC7 did not behave "as expected" and the explanation being offered here is that the relevant science wasn't yet "evolved" enough. That's exactly what the book I had in mind what deal with.Q: If fires start in a building and there is no firefighting effort, is the building expected to come down? Or would it be expected that the building would remain standing after the fires have burned out?
A: Buildings are currently designed based upon E119 test results for building components and subassemblies. [...] This would provide sufficient time for people to evacuate and for automatic sprinklers or manual firefighting efforts to control the fire. [...] The assumption is that the system as a whole will survive that exposure. The implicit assumption is that when there is a situation where the sprinklers do not function, there would be burnout of the building contents without collapse. [... But] The science has not evolved to the point of designing to meet the performance objective of burnout without collapse.
I'm not sure why you need to be frustrated. This isn't really a debate. I'm just clarifying what kind of book I'd like to read on this subject. Our discussion is driven forward (not in circles) by (1) people claiming that the book I want is not needed, (2) people claiming that the book I want already exists in some form, (3) people claiming that the book I want is impossible to write. I try to explain that (1) it would do a lot of good, (2) the existing books/reports/forums aren't what I mean, (3) there must be good understanding of the collapses in science. And each of these points have details that are, at least to me, just interesting in themselves to talk about....the frustration of your circling the debate.
Second time I see that phrase. It does feel like some of you are debating with me. But it implies that I have some other point than "I wish there was a good popular book on the collapses. Does anyone else here feel the same way? Or is there a book I've missed that satisfied you?"...what you are trying to imply. // Cherry picking and quote mining ... Is this a Gish gallop in disguise...
This surprises me. One thing that attracted me to this forum was @Mick West 's interviews with "recovering" truthers. Their exisence suggests that "resolution" is possible and, like I say, perhaps even an "ounce of prevention"...Sorry but there is near zero chance of EITHER getting a truther to state specifically what they "expected" OR ~19 years history says it is futile to expect truthers clams to be resolved.
I think good popular zoology books are saving people the trouble of becoming cryptozoologists every day without fanfare or drama. Imagine if there were no such books and people said "It's impossible to write an 'authoritative', 'definitive' guide to the flora and fauna of the Rocky Mountains because there's just too many different kinds of plants, too many species of birds and insects! You want a complete account? Give it up! Is this some sort of gish gallop?" I must say, I feel a bit like that's what some of you are saying to me about this book I lament the non-existence of.Cure for Conspiracies? /Bottom line
Will there will be a "best popular account of the WTC collapse" to cure conspiracy theories... will that be when we have a "best popular account of Bigfoot".
I'm curious to know if you seriously didn't see that this was my point. Read that entire passage and tell me that I didn't imagine, first, a 1300 x 400 x 400 foot limestone monolith and, then, WTC made out of limestone. Both as highly dubious construction projects. But what we can be sure of is that the Great Pyramid is not vulnerable to top-down progressive collapse. So that's a great contrast case to the WTC, which clearly was vulnerable to top-down progressive collapse.lol, pyramids, how much rentable office space did they have
Some of these questions probably have interesting answers. My question is a bit simpler: given what did in fact happen to the WTC, what would the Chicago Fire Department do when faced with what looks like the same situation, however it may have come about? Would they encourage people to leave (maybe even help them) but basically expect the building to collapse within a couple of hours? If not, is that because of a scientifically demonstrable difference between the buildings? That would be interesting and should go in the book.The Aon Center in Chicago, how it similar, and different? For one the exterior is clad in Granite, after they removed the marble which could and did fall off, the WTC was aluminum clad. Aon does maximize column-free space, like the WTC towers. Have you studied the floors, the thickness of the shell steel? Insulation, is it friable? Is wallboard used as insulation in the core? Who is going to fly a 767 at high speed into Aon? Do we need to design building to survive planes flying at illegal speed as weapons of mass destruction? From giant bombs? Where do we draw the line? I know the design of the WTC towers for stopping aircraft, what is it for the Chicago building. How fast is your 767/757 going? Who is dumb enough to fly a 767/757 into a buildings, I think they have exhausted the pilot pool for idiot followers. (image if someone was a UBL follower, and the plot was explained, I would jump up and have UBL demonstrate the plot himself, "you first UBL")
I don't understand that last part. (Especially given the first part where you say you'd love to do it.) Why would knowing how the buildings collapsed demotivate you from writing a book about it? Time is a real problem. Writing skill (and thrill) is another. I'm not demanding you write it. But I'm surprised no one (with your knowledge) has.I would love to have the time to make the best popular account of the WTC collapse, I'm an engineer. My writing skills are deplorable. I understand how and why the towers collapsed (thus I have no motivation).
I am not interest in debating........
I'm not sure why you need to be frustrated. This isn't really a debate. I'm just clarifying what kind of book I'd like to read on this subject. Our discussion is driven forward (not in circles) by (1) people claiming that the book I want is not needed, (2) people claiming that the book I want already exists in some form, (3) people claiming that the book I want is impossible to write. I try to explain that (1) it would do a lot of good, (2) the existing books/reports/forums aren't what I mean, (3) there must be good understanding of the collapses in science. And each of these points have details that are, at least to me, just interesting in themselves to talk about.
I am at a loss to see where you're coming from, can you show quotes?(1) people claiming that the book I want is not needed, (2) people claiming that the book I want already exists in some form, (3) people claiming that the book I want is impossible to write. I try to explain that (1) it would do a lot of good, (2) the existing books/reports/forums aren't what I mean, (3) there must be good understanding of the collapses in science.
Writing a popular science book is often the outcome of the author going on a journey of discovery, which is exciting and can drive the writing process. Keith has already undertaken that journey.Why would knowing how the buildings collapsed demotivate you from writing a book about it.
My hunch is that post 9/11 DOBs around the world began a review of high rises and their fire protection/ fire fighting and egress strategies including time / motion studies of occupants.... and undertook some changes to improve survivability of occupants short of major retro fits.Some of these questions probably have interesting answers. My question is a bit simpler: given what did in fact happen to the WTC, what would the Chicago Fire Department do when faced with what looks like the same situation, however it may have come about? Would they encourage people to leave (maybe even help them) but basically expect the building to collapse within a couple of hours? If not, is that because of a scientifically demonstrable difference between the buildings? That would be interesting and should go in the book.
Where is your evidence for this? Can you give some examples? What is the motivation of Richard Dawkins.. Here are his books:Writing a popular science book is often the outcome of the author going on a journey of discovery, which is exciting and can drive the writing process. Keith has already undertaken that journey.
I don't know much about John McPhee, but it seems he is one of these?Where is your evidence for this? Can you give some examples?
I think I'm just going to start saying, "That would be interesting and should go in the book," as a kind of mantra. ;-)My hunch is that post 9/11 DOBs around the world began a review of high rises and their fire protection/ fire fighting and egress strategies including time / motion studies of occupants.... and undertook some changes to improve survivability of occupants short of major retro fits.
I wouldn't be against such a book, but it is explicitly not what I'm asking for, and I hope at least one book in this area would leave many of these "ideas" on the side. What is needed is a book that is not oriented around or driven by the conspiracy theorists' interest in the collapses, but one that comes at them from the point of view of curiosity about how tall buildings (cf. cruise ships and space shuttles) work.Truth guys has theories such as nano thermite, mini nukes, "space beams" and so on. I think a book should summarize and "critique" all these "ideas/theories" from an engineering/scientific perspective.
I'm happy to say that it's just my opinion. But it seems sort of plausible. I had a chance earlier today to say that we don't give "flora and fauna" books enough credit for stemming what could be a much bigger tide of Bigfoot believers.If your claim is that such a book prevents CTs and "would do a lot of good", do you have evidence for that, or is it just your opinion?
How is it clear? I mean, obviously, YOU are not satisfied, but is there really this "big group of people"?I just think there's a big group of people that are plain, oldfashioned curious. And they're clearly not being satisfied.
It's just that we've all agreed the book doesn't exist. I may be wrong that the audience for it exists. But I think there's a consensus that if the audience exists it is not being satisfied. I agree that whether or not there's a big group of people (I'm thinking several thousand at least) is an empirical question and one I don't have evidence to answer.How is it clear? I mean, obviously, YOU are not satisfied, but is there really this "big group of people"?
If you put aside your feeling that there would be such a group, what's the objective evidence that such a group exists?
I had a chance earlier today to say that we don't give "flora and fauna" books enough credit for stemming what could be a much bigger tide of Bigfoot believers.
even if you could keep all the profits from your book because you self publish on Amazon. what is the profit you are looking at? hoouw much time do you think it would take to write such a book?(I'm thinking several thousand at least)
I think it would be very strange if there were no popular books (and only government reports) about bears. And that would allow people to believe much stranger things.you think if people don't know bears exist, that they might see a bear and think "Big foot"! You dont seem to know much about Bigfoot either.
I am a retired engineer qualified in Civil and Military Engineering. Jeffrey is an architect and we are long term colleagues in these discussions. We have very different styles of discussion but only one quite broad area of disagreement. Put simply Jeffrey recognises the complexity of WTC collapses and tends to take the position as per his recent post "Many (if not most) details are not known... and you know this." Whilst I would assert strongly "We know enough to push forward in argument and explanation". And I could explain rigorously why my position is valid/supportable. The difference of our styles should be apparent from recent posts. Be assured - we are still friends.I have a question for @Jeffrey Orling and @econ41. As I understand it, you both have expertise in structural engineering, and, as far as I can tell, you have serious disagreements about how the WTC collapsed, as well as what has been "settled" and which questions remain open.
I cannot speak for Jeffrey BUT my position is clear. I do NOT recognise any third parties as authorities on those aspects of structural applied physics I rely on in discussion or debate. I agree with those such as NIST, Bazant, Sunder on those assertions where they are correct. It is my own primary area of expertise and - if I need to disagree with them I cannot concurrently regard them as "authorities". BTW I also agree with truth movement side persons on those matters where they are correct. My approach to explanation and supporting argument of WTC applied physics is that I only rely on elements of evidentiary proof which are demonstrably correct based on the source evidence. I NEVER rely on the reasoning of third party authorities. So whatever elements of fact are "provable" in lay person language.Who would both of you recognize as authorities on the issues you argue about (Robertson? Bazant? Sunder? Starossek? Isobe?) Whose book would you read with rapt attention? Or a book about whom would you pay attention to? (I'm not saying you'd just believe them. I'm saying they'd have your attention.)
I am hardly an expert. I am an architect in NY and ironically dis work in the office of Emory Roth & Sons, the architects of record... they did the architectural drawings for the twin towers... Yamasaki was the designer... back in the early 70s. I do not design steel frame high rises, but as an architect I have of course some competence with structure.I have a question for @Jeffrey Orling and @econ41. As I understand it, you both have expertise in structural engineering, and, as far as I can tell, you have serious disagreements about how the WTC collapsed, as well as what has been "settled" and which questions remain open. Who would both of you recognize as authorities on the issues you argue about (Robertson? Bazant? Sunder? Starossek? Isobe?) Whose book would you read with rapt attention? Or a book about whom would you pay attention to? (I'm not saying you'd just believe them. I'm saying they'd have your attention.)
No. people still see bears. so they would believe government reports. People belive in Bigfoot because they see him and think "it wasnt a bear".I think it would be very strange if there were no popular books (and only government reports) about bears. And that would allow people to believe much stranger things.
Agreed - I've seen better analogies. Then to (mis)quote the old aphorism - since "We are unlikely to observe aeronautical manoeuvres by members of the family Suidae", flying by Ursus is even less probable.I'm just saying your Bigfoot analogy doesn't fly.
Agreed but it is not the point I was trying to make - we have a "set<>sub set" confusion. Yes there are some truthers who "recover". More in the past than now for simple reasons of CT group dynamics. My comment was about current probability of getting truthers to "state specifically". I did not say "no truthers ever escape the rabbit burrow".
This surprises me. One thing that attracted me to this forum was @Mick West 's interviews with "recovering" truthers. Their exisence suggests that "resolution" is possible and, like I say, perhaps even an "ounce of prevention"...
Isn't our confusion easily cleared up, then: the book I'm imagining would help many truthers in the "set", even if it would help few truthers in the "subset". And it might prevent someone from joining the "set" in the first place.we have a "set<>sub set" confusion
I'm not sure why I have to explain this, but it wasn't my analogy (it was @Keith Beachy 's), and I was showing it doesn't fly. I am not proposing a book that would be like "the best popular book on Big Foot"; I am proposing what would be, analogically, a good book about (or at least including) the bears that do exist in the same environment. That book would not, of course, even mention Bigfoot. There are many of them, and most don't. (Do I have to find examples, @Mendel? Or can we just stipulate that there are lots of popular books about flora and fauna.)I'm just saying your Bigfoot analogy doesn't fly.
Maybe "authority" was a poor choice of words. I was trying to say that you and @Jeffrey Orling consider yourself competent analysts of the collapses, i.e., you are qualified to understand them, and you probably don't consider yourselves uniquely qualified. Who do you recognize as peers and how do you recognize them? Clearly, it's not just by whether they agree with you. After all, you recognize each other.I cannot speak for Jeffrey BUT my position is clear. I do NOT recognise any third parties as authorities on those aspects of structural applied physics I rely on in discussion or debate.