ok. so someone already mentioned the moon landing, so i will talk about 9/11 instead. it was an inside job. according to zbignu brezenski, it is part of the u.s regime's desire to control central asia. it can be used as a training ground for terorists that will be sent into China, and Russia. Occupying central Asia will also block any attempts to link the east to the west with regards to railway, or pipelines. The main way that the u.s, and the west is able to stay on top is by preventing others from developing, rather than innovation, or ideas. physics experts, lets talk about how a steel building cannot melt in a few hours, and cause the building to collapse.

Insanity.

physics experts, lets talk about how a steel building cannot melt in a few hours, and cause the building to collapse.
ok.
steel buildings such as the twin towers cannot melt in a few hours.
good enough?

there were many factors that contributed to the collapse itself, none of those were "planted explosives".

ok. so someone already mentioned the moon landing, so i will talk about 9/11 instead. it was an inside job. according to zbignu brezenski, it is part of the u.s regime's desire to control central asia. it can be used as a training ground for terorists that will be sent into China, and Russia. Occupying central Asia will also block any attempts to link the east to the west with regards to railway, or pipelines. The main way that the u.s, and the west is able to stay on top is by preventing others from developing, rather than innovation, or ideas. physics experts, lets talk about how a steel building cannot melt in a few hours, and cause the building to collapse.

Big claims, especially referring to a man I respect a lot, Zbigniew Brzezinski. I'd be interested in knowing your sources for such thoughts? Did you read one of his books?

Lately Zbigniew Brzezinski has said that the US has blown the opportunity available to her after the fall of the Soviet Union. I don't doubt that there are actors who'd benefit immensely from the strategic objects you've outlined; however, there are those with the patients and will to outlast anything.

lets talk about how a steel building cannot melt in a few hours, and cause the building to collapse.

OK, let's. You go build a scale model, pour a few thousands of gallons of fuel into it, and set it alight, and let us know how it fares.

The steel doesn't need to 'melt' btw, go look up data for steel, strength vs temperature, you'll see as it gets hot, it gets weak. This is how blacksmiths manage to make horse shoes from steel using coal and bellows!

Someone somewhere in that nasty holocaust denial thread or one of its associated threads, mentioned that 9/11 has been done to death on SciForum and in earlier years a moratorium was called.

Can't we please just let those people rest in peace?

And Winston, if you want to be taken seriously you really ought to obet the rules of spelling and capitalization. I can barely read your post because the errors are so distracting. They make me not care about what you want to say. Sorry, but it's true.

[QUOTE=Epictetus;2952505]
Can't we please just let those people rest in peace?

/QUOTE]

No they cannot. There's actually a group of truthers that believe all of the deaths on 9/11 were faked....that no one died in the towers..or in the plane crashes. I can't find the link right now...but one of the "vicsims" (simulated victims) had a memorial service, and one of these "vicsim" guys was passing out literature about a victim who was made up...yet for some reason...hundreds of people gathered to morne their passing...and raise money for a college scholarship in her name. Thw police were called.

There's some completely crazy people in his world.

Not a fact.

Not a fact.

He seems confident, lets interview him. I am confident of some sort of inside hinge. Giant Owls cough.

ok. so someone already mentioned the moon landing, so i will talk about 9/11 instead. it was an inside job. according to zbignu brezenski, it is part of the u.s regime's desire to control central asia. it can be used as a training ground for terorists that will be sent into China, and Russia. Occupying central Asia will also block any attempts to link the east to the west with regards to railway, or pipelines. The main way that the u.s, and the west is able to stay on top is by preventing others from developing, rather than innovation, or ideas. physics experts, lets talk about how a steel building cannot melt in a few hours, and cause the building to collapse.5638
It all makes such perfect sense!....Same BS that they tried to pass in Zeitgeist: The Movie( which was debunked by the way)http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/

Did I wake up in 2004?

I wonder if there's a seasonality to the woo-woo visits.

I wonder if there's a seasonality to the woo-woo visits.

Your here year round, and other guys pop in and out. Doesn't seem like it.

Anyways, it was an inside job, and yes it was a conspiracy. I have plenty of theories as well. The only real one is the Illuminati did it.

Your here year round, and other guys pop in and out. Doesn't seem like it.

Anyways, it was an inside job, and yes it was a conspiracy. I have plenty of theories as well. The only real one is the Illuminati did it.

Really, the Illuminati? I've always leaned more towards Bush and Halliburton

Anyways, it was an inside job, and yes it was a conspiracy. I have plenty of theories as well. The only real one is the Illuminati did it.
Prove it. Validate it. Bring in the information to support your claims.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/
Read Up.

Your here year round, and other guys pop in and out. Doesn't seem like it.

One benchmark most woos have to pass to be called woos is essentially grammatical. 'Anyways' is also a no-no.


Anyways, it was an inside job, and yes it was a conspiracy. I have plenty of theories as well. The only real one is the Illuminati did it.

I have no doubt that you have plenty of theories: but of all the theories you do have, the only one that is real is that the Illuminati did it.

Well, consider me sold. It must be real!

Oh. Kx000 is knowlege91. I won't mention hair or neutrons.

Really, the Illuminati? I've always leaned more towards Bush and Halliburton

Yea. Them, and media empires, super bankers, etc.

Yea. Them, and media empires, super bankers, etc.

So do you have a complete 2012 list of the Illuminati?

So do you have a complete 2012 list of the Illuminati?

Daniel Tosh, and James Holmes. Tosh is the leader, Holmes isn't inducted yet, he is a reincarnated leader of them. Interview these two guys. Check them for schizophrenia, the Illuminati has kept a lid on telepathy for seventy years.

Daniel Tosh as in the comedian Daniel Tosh?

You'd think the leader of the most of the most powerful shadow government in the world could do better than a low-budget cable clip show.

Daniel Tosh as in the comedian Daniel Tosh?

You'd think the leader of the most of the most powerful shadow government in the world could do better than a low-budget cable clip show.

Its there play. To completely demoralize the youth. Tosh is just the harmless comedian.

5667
I know your reading this. You are my brother. You, yours. Me, mine. We till the middle ground together.
Take a load off, for me. Oh, and if they follow you into Hell... well... What am I suppose to do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvHP8GWDPHY&feature=related

LOVE.

Are you high?

Are you high?

Soon to be

The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is as clear as the proof that the Apollo moon missions were faked. Here's some info I collected on that.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

True. Just as it would be easier to just go to the Moon than build an elaborate perfect conspiracy, it was easier for security to be lax enough to allow terrorists to obtain some planes and crash them than to build an even more elaborate conspiracy around blowing up some buildings.

They also share in common a lot of bad science.

True. Just as it would be easier to just go to the Moon than build an elaborate perfect conspiracy, it was easier for security to be lax enough to allow terrorists to obtain some planes and crash them than to build an even more elaborate conspiracy around blowing up some buildings.

They also share in common a lot of bad science.

You would think after ten years of going to their country and kicking ass they could have pulled off another attack of sorts here on US soil. We all know our security isn't that great, this is what leads me to think they didn't do it in the 1st place.

Tosh is to blame.

You would think after ten years of going to their country and kicking ass they could have pulled off another attack of sorts here on US soil. We all know our security isn't that great, this is what leads me to think they didn't do it in the 1st place.

It's a fallacy that because something doesn't happen frequently, that there must not be any attempts at all. Mind you, I agree that US security is embarrassing, especially compared to some other countries who use different techniques outside of the "in your face". But why would US security advertise every thwarted attempt? Sometimes it's better to keep things quiet, get some plants inside the network, make them think everything is okay. You get more inside info that way.

Or maybe we've just been lucky, and 9/11 was their last big push, and it worked. We were definitely a lot less secure back then, and had trained our passengers to cooperate with the hijackers to stay alive. Some things in retrospect that we changed do make sense, a lot like how you look back at someone who commits a murder or suicide, and realize there were signs that just weren't picked up.

Anyway, so many of the 9/11 denier claims aren't founded in good science, just like Moon hoax theories aren't, and that gets back to Freddy's attempt to try and get that ball rolling. Sometimes the simple thing is true...even if some parts of it seem unreal to us.

Some people also would like to believe in some bigger grand conspiracy, they feel that today's world doesn't have enough excitement, and they get an ego boost from thinking they are part of a small crowd of prosecuted believers who know some Truth no one else does.

Well, actually there have been dozens of attempted jihadi attacks in the continental US. You don't tend to hear about them much because it's not considered politic by the MSM.

Well, actually there have been dozens of attempted jihadi attacks in the continental US. You don't tend to hear about them much because it's not considered politic by the MSM.

I really would like to read about some of these if you could post the links please.

It's a fallacy that because something doesn't happen frequently, that there must not be any attempts at all. Mind you, I agree that US security is embarrassing, especially compared to some other countries who use different techniques outside of the "in your face". But why would US security advertise every thwarted attempt? Sometimes it's better to keep things quiet, get some plants inside the network, make them think everything is okay. You get more inside info that way.

Or maybe we've just been lucky, and 9/11 was their last big push, and it worked. We were definitely a lot less secure back then, and had trained our passengers to cooperate with the hijackers to stay alive. Some things in retrospect that we changed do make sense, a lot like how you look back at someone who commits a murder or suicide, and realize there were signs that just weren't picked up.

Anyway, so many of the 9/11 denier claims aren't founded in good science, just like Moon hoax theories aren't, and that gets back to Freddy's attempt to try and get that ball rolling. Sometimes the simple thing is true...even if some parts of it seem unreal to us.

Some people also would like to believe in some bigger grand conspiracy, they feel that today's world doesn't have enough excitement, and they get an ego boost from thinking they are part of a small crowd of prosecuted believers who know some Truth no one else does.

For me personally I find it hard to believe that young kids can obtain fully automatic weapons, the components to make explosives and walk into a movie theater to kill a dozen people, but terrorists can’t blow up a Starbucks. Now don’t get me wrong I don’t want this to happen at all, it just seems to me like if they applied a little effort they could launch some sort of attack. Be it minor or major they could have some impact on American soil. That’s what I don’t understand, people will say we stop terrorist attacks quite often or they don’t make it into the media. But wouldn’t it make the average American feel good if we knew we stopped attacks regularly?

I think it's a question of scale or national effect. Blowing up a Starbucks would make the headlines for a few days, but it wouldn't really impact more than the locals. Getting together the resources and manpower to do something truly shocking to the nation as a whole, that is a bit harder from many aspects. I can think of many things that could be done that would be paralyzing to the US, short and long term, and I also am surprised and glad that they haven't happened. But I can't say they haven't been planned or tried in some ways...like I said, sometimes it's better to, instead of stopping something and telling the media much of anything, use your found connections into the terrorist network to work up to the higher points of authority. The whole cutting off the heads of the snakes, as it were. That way you're not constantly fighting small fires, you're putting the big one out.

I think it's a question of scale or national effect. Blowing up a Starbucks would make the headlines for a few days, but it wouldn't really impact more than the locals.

I'd have to disagree with you on that if an actual terrorist attack happened at a Starbucks or anywhere it would be major for everyone in the nation not just the locals.

I really would like to read about some of these if you could post the links please.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

Sorry, no links on them. But, with the details in hand it should be possible to locate them. Fort Hood, Binghampton and a few others stick in the mind, obviously. Here's another one:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

I'd have to disagree with you on that if an actual terrorist attack happened at a Starbucks or anywhere it would be major for everyone in the nation not just the locals.

Why?

Why?

Why would the attack affect us on a national level?

1.) It would make the general population aware to how weak our security is.
2.) Skeptics would start to realize Terrorism or the act of is a very real thing,
3.) Our nation already feels the impact from when café or subway bombings happen in other countries, I feel this would be intensified if it was local.
4.) VA Tech shootings were talked about for months, think how long the attacks would be broadcasted in the media if it was a terrorist attack on US soil.

To frame Osama bin Laden. Think outside the box.

Just a thought.

I think the 9/11 conspiracy theory was some political agenda to make a President or even a political person look bad. It has been done many times, it could be done again.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has finally come out in the last few days with their complete documentary on the engineering problems inherent in the official explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBCu_pvhnzQ

Tosh is to blame.

No one needs to accept blame unless they are guilty to their own love.

No one needs to accept blame unless they are guilty to their own love.

I heard the Indonesia disaster was an inside job set up by Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman. He got hold of a Saudi earthquake weapon and dropped it in the sea.

master conspirators typically resort to ridicule to distract and divert attention to their own heinous and insidious activities
yeah
really, geoff!
who do you think you are fooling?

/scoffs

What, do you know Omar? Then how can you say better than me? I heard it on like five chatboards already.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has finally come out in the last few days with their complete documentary on the engineering problems inherent in the official explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBCu_pvhnzQ

Thank you. I think intelligent, well informed individuals already know that it was an inside job. The only questions now are; How was it accomplished? What organizations were involved? and Why did they do it?

Truly it can be said to be an American coup by the global elites.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has finally come out in the last few days with their complete documentary on the engineering problems inherent in the official explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBCu_pvhnzQ

A two hour argument from authority, and everything I heard has been debunked. More of "I want to believe". One of the architects even says he would have expected the building to fall over sideways...he obviously didn't understand the internal design of the WTC towers.

Thank you. I think intelligent, well informed individuals already know that it was an inside job. The only questions now are; How was it accomplished? What organizations were involved? and Why did they do it?

Truly it can be said to be an American coup by the global elites.

I think its part of a much bigger plot.

A two hour argument from authority, and everything I heard has been debunked. More of "I want to believe". One of the architects even says he would have expected the building to fall over sideways...he obviously didn't understand the internal design of the WTC towers.

. . . . as I already stated before, intelligent, educated, well informed individuals already know. . . .

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

~Joseph Goebbels

If you care to refresh my memory how NIST "debunked" the free fall of WTC 7 (video minutes 34 to 38 roughly). NIST admits its error without reworking the physics. It is a fundamental flaw in their reasoning. Their lies may work on the general public, not to those who are paying attention.

I think its part of a much bigger plot.

A plot bigger than a conspiracy involving global players? You think there are aliens, angels or demons involved? :scratchin:

A plot bigger than a conspiracy involving global players? You think there are aliens, angels or demons involved? :scratchin:

Well I believe I'm an angel in the flesh, so yea they would be too.

While I believe that the US deserved to get hit, due to our meddlesome foreign policy, I don't believe it was an inside job. Actually I'm starting to frame my views on foreign policy this way: "If Israel doesn't like it or is threatened by it some world event, then it's probably a good thing."

While I believe that the US deserved to get hit, due to our meddlesome foreign policy, I don't believe it was an inside job. Actually I'm starting to frame my views on foreign policy this way: "If Israel doesn't like it or is threatened by it some world event, then it's probably a good thing."

Please go on.

Please go on.
Nah. It will just piss everybody off. Especially those that view our close relationship and support of Israel as a good and necessary thing.

As long as you don't break forum rules we would all love to know more about how you think and feel.

As long as you don't break forum rules we would all love to know more about how you think and feel.
A summary. The US support of Israel in all things and the lack of support of the Palestinians has lead to much grief in the Middle East and throughout the world. Now, back to September 11, 2001 as an inside job (snicker, snicker).

A summary. The US support of Israel in all things and the lack of support of the Palestinians has lead to much grief in the Middle East and throughout the world. Now, back to September 11, 2001 as an inside job (snicker, snicker).

The United States, Israel, and Palestine all have one thing in common. None of them are taking us in the right direction.

While I believe that the US deserved to get hit, due to our meddlesome foreign policy, I don't believe it was an inside job. Actually I'm starting to frame my views on foreign policy this way: "If Israel doesn't like it or is threatened by it some world event, then it's probably a good thing."

You may criticize our Israel policy, but nothing we did there deserves the death of 3,000 of our civilians. That's a reprehensible thing to say.

You may criticize our Israel policy, but nothing we did there deserves the death of 3,000 of our civilians. That's a reprehensible thing to say.
I've said worse. Better shut your eyes little girl or view the world thru your rose-colored glasses. I find the support of Israel reprehensible. So there.

BTW, can you tell me how many innocent civilians the US has killed in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars? I think you'll find that it is a couple orders of magnitude more than 3000.

I've said worse. Better close your ears little girl.

Go on.

Go on.
I love people that get all indignant about Americans being killed but can't look beyond their noses at how many innocent civilians the US kills. Maybe they don't know? They can't be bothered to find out? Or they know and don't care?

BTW, can you tell me how many innocent civilians the US has killed in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars?

To use your own reasoning - I love how you get all indignant about Afghanis getting killed but can't look beyond your own nose to see how many innocent civilians _they_ killed. Maybe you don't know? Or just don't care?

See? You can blame everyone back to . . . whenever you like.

To use your own reasoning - I love how you get all indignant about Afghanis getting killed but can't look beyond your own nose to see how many innocent civilians _they_ killed. Maybe you don't know? Or just don't care?

See? You can blame everyone back to . . . whenever you like.
OK, I'll use your reasoning: I don't give a damn about anybody getting killed no matter where. That's a much better attitude. I feel better already. Happy now professor? I've seen the light! I feel like a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Thank you! Thank you!

I love people that get all indignant about Americans being killed but can't look beyond their noses at how many innocent civilians the US kills. Maybe they don't know? They can't be bothered to find out? Or they know and don't care?

Right, because all circumstances are morally equivalent...

Right, because all circumstances are morally equivalent...
Why don't you go for a jog and just forget about all the killing. Forget . . . . Forget . . . .

Only if you forget the victims of the regimes we destroyed.

Right, because all circumstances are morally equivalent...
The Pakastani parents of a girl that was killed because she was playing outside near the house that was destroyed by a US drone missile are not likely to see any moral differences between that and the September 11, 2001 atrocities in the US. Both are wrong.

BTW, I define "innocent civilian" a bit differently than most folks do. You're an innocent civilian if you are under the age of 18, basically a child still. Once you're 18 and can vote, you're part of this US machine and you now have left childhood behind to become an adult and integral part of how this nation behaves. You can vote, join the military, drink. Do all the things adults do. You are no longer innocent. You can take credit for the good things the US does and you have to take responsibility for the bad things it does.

OK, I'll use your reasoning: I don't give a damn about anybody getting killed no matter where.

Terrible assumption! You would do better to care about people getting killed on BOTH sides. They're still human beings even if you don't like their politics.


I've seen the light!

You haven't yet, but keep looking.

You can vote, join the military, drink.

Actually that's incorrect, US drinking laws are age 21 and have been for some time.

Incidentally, The threads on one subject and your off-topic, so you might want to reroute your posts from now on.

Burn it all down? Start a new?

BTW, I define "innocent civilian" a bit differently than most folks do. You're an innocent civilian if you are under the age of 18, basically a child still. Once you're 18 and can vote, you're part of this US machine and you now have left childhood behind to become an adult and integral part of how this nation behaves. You can vote, join the military, drink. Do all the things adults do. You are no longer innocent. You can take credit for the good things the US does and you have to take responsibility for the bad things it does.

Ah, OK. So most of the "innocent civilians" the US killed in Iraq weren't innocent at all! They took responsibility for all the bad things Saddam Hussein did. And all those Vietnamese killed - also guilty by association. You sure you want to claim that?

so you might want to reroute your posts from now on.
Yes, I will re-route them to the bit bucket.

Ah, OK. So most of the "innocent civilians" the US killed in Iraq weren't innocent at all! They took responsibility for all the bad things Saddam Hussein did. And all those Vietnamese killed - also guilty by association. You sure you want to claim that?
I didn't mention other nations Professor Corey, I said the US. And yes, you and I as civilians are partly responsible for the deaths the US causes in other countries.

Now, new posts are being re-routed to the bit bucket.

I didn't mention other nations Professor Corey, I said the US.

I know. Do your standards of morality change when it's a country you don't like vs a country you like?

I know. Do your standards of morality change when it's a country you don't like vs a country you like?
I never stated what countries I like or dislike. Now, don't go away mad. Just go away.

Actually that's incorrect, US drinking laws are age 21 and have been for some time.

Well, there are several exceptions to that. The laws in question are all state laws, but there are parts of the USA that are not states. One major example is the military: if you are serving in the military and under 21, you can legally drink at bowling allies and the like on military bases. Likewise, the various US territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam) have drinking ages of 18. They are not eligible for the Federal Highway Funds, which is the main mechanism that the Federal government uses to compel states to raise the drinking age to 21, and so they do not face any pressure to do so. Those areas are also free of various taxes (booze and cigarettes are dirt cheap in the US Virgin Islands, for example) and some also allow drinking and driving (again, USVI).

The Pakastani parents of a girl that was killed because she was playing outside near the house that was destroyed by a US drone missile are not likely to see any moral differences between that and the September 11, 2001 atrocities in the US.

You have presented absolutely nothing in the way of evidence about what these Pakistanis think. You are just using pure weasel words here.



BTW, I define "innocent civilian" a bit differently than most folks do. You're an innocent civilian if you are under the age of 18, basically a child still. Once you're 18 and can vote, you're part of this US machine and you now have left childhood behind to become an adult and integral part of how this nation behaves. You can vote, join the military, drink. Do all the things adults do. You are no longer innocent. You can take credit for the good things the US does and you have to take responsibility for the bad things it does.

The fact that the adult civilian populace in the USA bears ultimate political responsibility for the government does not mean that it is legitimate to target them for retaliation or terror.

Moreover, international relations aren't particularly about "justice" or "fairness." The fact that Americans might "deserve" to suffer is neither here nor there - the important questions all have to do with what actions will result in useful progress and what actions will not. Punishing random Americans with violent terror might well feel gratifying to some parties, but all it achieves is more destruction and enmity. Most people learn some time in grade school that punching somebody in the face does not cause that person to empathize with you and consider how to productively address the differences that pissed you off in the first place. It just makes them angry and likely to punch you back.

The Pakastani parents of a girl that was killed because she was playing outside near the house that was destroyed by a US drone missile are not likely to see any moral differences between that and the September 11, 2001 atrocities in the US. Both are wrong.

BTW, I define "innocent civilian" a bit differently than most folks do. You're an innocent civilian if you are under the age of 18, basically a child still. Once you're 18 and can vote, you're part of this US machine and you now have left childhood behind to become an adult and integral part of how this nation behaves. You can vote, join the military, drink. Do all the things adults do. You are no longer innocent. You can take credit for the good things the US does and you have to take responsibility for the bad things it does.

So if you accidentally back over my child, killing her, and I take out a knife and cut your throat, there is no moral difference between our actions?

I never stated what countries I like or dislike.

You strongly implied that the citizens of the US bear some responsibility for what their government does, and thus 9/11 was partly justified. Then you change your moral viewpoint and claim that the citizens of countries like Iraq and Vietnam are innocent of any such associations, and thus when the US bombs them they are killing innocent people.


Now, don't go away mad. Just go away.

Sorry, am I asking questions that make you uncomfortable?

So if you accidentally back over my child, killing her, and I take out a knife and cut your throat, there is no moral difference between our actions?

Well one was intentional, one was accidental. Question is this, who, and why did you cut his throat? The accidental kill is surly immoral.

A summary. The US support of Israel in all things and the lack of support of the Palestinians has lead to much grief in the Middle East and throughout the world. Now, back to September 11, 2001 as an inside job (snicker, snicker).

It's precisely because there wasn't enough public support of Israel that 911 happened. Although the CIA helped create Al Queda, which is a documented fact, Mossad has had, and currently has far better connections and control over the Muslim Brotherhood and the highest ranking operatives inside their ranks. They also have operatives in every capitol in the middle east and have helped to "push" every revolution in the Arab spring. Any they couldn't, they have had help from NATO. It's well known the CFR and the contributors that support them control the media. Wise up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD_vwzjdTi4

If it's not an inside job, people on the inside certainly know what really happened. And it sure as hell didn't have anything to do with OBL, Afganistan, Box Cutters, Radical Islamic Fundamentalism, etc.

If it's not an inside job, people on the inside certainly know what really happened. And it sure as hell didn't have anything to do with OBL, Afganistan, Box Cutters, Radical Islamic Fundamentalism, etc.

I sometimes wonder if it's fear that drives people like you to these fucking absurd conspiracy theories. I mean, it's scary to think that a group of fundamentalist scumbags on the other side of the planet can do something so horrible. But there's nothing extraordinary about what they did. Carrying boxcutters onto an airplane? Easy. Hijacking an airplane with those boxcutters and false threats of a bomb? Easy. Flying them into buildings? Nothing that some lessons at a flight school or two couldn't take care of. It's pretty incredible that the buildings fell down, but it's certainly easier to see that happening than to imagine a scenario in which several buildings were wired for detonation with no one being the wiser. That's akin to saying the earth rotates because God spun us like a top.

Nor would such an extreme have even been necessary to facilitate the support for war. It makes no sense on any level whatsoever for the United States government to kill off over 3,000 of its citizens for the sake of starting a war, when staging a much smaller event would have accomplished the same thing. Hell, knocking the towers down at night would have given them much of the same newsreel, the same scenes of panic, and without the insane death toll. I keep hearing how this is just an American Reichstag, but do you know how many people died in that fire? None!

I think I get it, though. I think understand that we retreat to these nonsensical fantasies because it's better to assume that something so terrible is only possible when it comes from within. There's a sense of invincibility gained when one decides to believe that we are the only ones capable of hurting us. It's comforting to think that we can't be touched by something so low. But we can, and we have. 9/11 was the result of Islamic fundamentalism, as well as a bit of carelessness and inattention by our top officials. But to suggest that it was perpetrated by those officials is insulting, and stupid, and most of all absolute bullshit. And to then have the gall to say that all "intelligent, well-informed adults know" that it was an inside job is fucking mental. It's beyond the pale. It's taking the gold in the Intellectual Dishonesty Olympics.

I sometimes wonder if it's fear that drives people like you to these fucking absurd conspiracy theories. I mean, it's scary to think that a group of fundamentalist scumbags on the other side of the planet can do something so horrible. But there's nothing extraordinary about what they did. Carrying boxcutters onto an airplane? Easy. Hijacking an airplane with those boxcutters and false threats of a bomb? Easy. Flying them into buildings? Nothing that some lessons at a flight school or two couldn't take care of. It's pretty incredible that the buildings fell down, but it's certainly easier to see that happening than to imagine a scenario in which several buildings were wired for detonation with no one being the wiser. That's akin to saying the earth rotates because God spun us like a top.

Nor would such an extreme have even been necessary to facilitate the support for war. It makes no sense on any level whatsoever for the United States government to kill off over 3,000 of its citizens for the sake of starting a war, when staging a much smaller event would have accomplished the same thing. Hell, knocking the towers down at night would have given them much of the same newsreel, the same scenes of panic, and without the insane death toll. I keep hearing how this is just an American Reichstag, but do you know how many people died in that fire? None!

I think I get it, though. I think understand that we retreat to these nonsensical fantasies because it's better to assume that something so terrible is only possible when it comes from within. There's a sense of invincibility gained when one decides to believe that we are the only ones capable of hurting us. It's comforting to think that we can't be touched by something so low. But we can, and we have. 9/11 was the result of Islamic fundamentalism, as well as a bit of carelessness and inattention by our top officials. But to suggest that it was perpetrated by those officials is insulting, and stupid, and most of all absolute bullshit. And to then have the gall to say that all "intelligent, well-informed adults know" that it was an inside job is fucking mental. It's beyond the pale. It's taking the gold in the Intellectual Dishonesty Olympics.

I agree completely.

Sadly, while you might eventually talk an irrational individual out of his/her wacky belief in such an absurd conspiracy, you'll NEVER talk an irrational individual out of his/her irrationally. :shrug: It's a useless mission.

As the sign behind my desk says:

" Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity is forever."

Nor would such an extreme have even been necessary to facilitate the support for war. It makes no sense on any level whatsoever for the United States government to kill off over 3,000 of its citizens for the sake of starting a war, when staging a much smaller event would have accomplished the same thing. Hell, knocking the towers down at night would have given them much of the same newsreel, the same scenes of panic, and without the insane death toll. I keep hearing how this is just an American Reichstag, but do you know how many people died in that fire? None!

Right no such thing as Operation Northwoods or Mongoose.

Right no such thing as Operation Northwoods or Mongoose.

Who said that? I simply said that there would be no need to kill three thousands Americans to achieve that goal. Operation Northwoods speaks to that point, because it proposes operations that amount to no actual casualties.

I'm not sure what Operation Mongoose has to do with this, though.

Who said that? I simply said that there would be no need to kill three thousands Americans to achieve that goal. Operation Northwoods speaks to that point, because it proposes operations that amount to no actual casualties.

I'm not sure what Operation Mongoose has to do with this, though.

I would imagine starting riots, sinking ships, blowing up planes would inflict a few deaths, and Mongoose was similar actions to blame Castro and take control of Cuba. Now I don’t necessarily believe that the US government caused 9/11 but I do think ANY government would kill their own civilians for the betterment of themselves. Nations have done that for thousands of years.

I sometimes wonder if it's fear that drives people like you to these fucking absurd conspiracy theories. . . .

But to suggest that it was perpetrated by those officials is insulting, and stupid, and most of all absolute bullshit. And to then have the gall to say that all "intelligent, well-informed adults know" that it was an inside job is fucking mental. It's beyond the pale. It's taking the gold in the Intellectual Dishonesty Olympics.

Whatever. I've had the debates too many times already. Your verbal abuse doesn't make you "right" or correct. Indeed, it only shows how increasingly desperate the other side of this issue on this debate is getting. I am here for the young, the curious, the open minded and people who wish to know the truth. I am not here for people who have been indoctrinated by government compulsory education, state schools, establishment universities, CFR corporate controlled media, and our party controlled political system. All of which have an interest in the current "preemptive" war making policy, reduction in civil liberties, and security fascist state that grew out of 911. These all protect the interest of big business and the global financial system.

What I am interested in are facts. This is a science forum, we should be interested in facts, and the facts are on the side of truth, not the government's conspiracy theory. I don't care if you view the documentary that Carcano posted, (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114344-9-11-was-an-inside-job&p=2971396&viewfull=1#post2971396) and I don't care if you view the documentary that I posted. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114344-9-11-was-an-inside-job&p=2975007&viewfull=1#post2975007) The point here is that the facts are posted now for the intellectually curious to find out the truth. Even if you yourself wish to be among the knowledgeable instead of slinging accusations, insults and feigning incredulousness, now is your opportunity instead of acting like a child.

Most adults, and experts who know how realpolitik work will tell you it is far more likely that Mossad and the CIA were instrumental in making sure that those planes got through strategic air command's air defenses, rather than it just being a colossal blunder. That just doesn't happen. If you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead. If you want to get educated, watch the videos, do some of your own research, and stop listening and watching corporate media. Hell, even foreign media that isn't connected to the global network knows the truth.

I would imagine starting riots, sinking ships, blowing up planes would inflict a few deaths,

I don't recall anything about starting riots, but the boat sinking and plane crashing was meant to be simulated. The object was to create the appearance of Cuban terrorism, not to actually kill American citizens. But even if they did lose some lives, nobody behind that project suggested knocking down skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. You must be able to see the difference between the two.


and Mongoose was similar actions to blame Castro and take control of Cuba.

Mongoose wasn't a false flag operation, so it doesn't apply here.


Now I don’t necessarily believe that the US government caused 9/11 but I do think ANY government would kill their own civilians for the betterment of themselves. Nations have done that for thousands of years.

Well, whether they would or wouldn't isn't relevant to the discussion. I certainly never took a position one way or the other. My point was that even if they were to stage a false flag attack to gain momentum for war, they wouldn't have needed to do it the way 9/11 happened. As I said before, staging it at night would have done the same thing without the huge death toll. To suggest that the US government perpetrated those attacks is to imply that our government at the highest levels consists of psychopaths.

I don't recall anything about starting riots, but the boat sinking and plane crashing was meant to be simulated. The object was to create the appearance of Cuban terrorism, not to actually kill American citizens. But even if they did lose some lives, nobody behind that project suggested knocking down skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. You must be able to see the difference between the two.

I see the difference between sinking ships and demolishing skyscrapers, the only point I am trying to make is the government would do something like this. Also there was a documented plan about using commercial airplanes to down buildings as a staged attack. The name of the plan escapes me right now so I will do some hunting to see if I can find you a link for this.

More specifically, the plan called for the following:
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
1. Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
2. Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
3. Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4. Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).[15]5. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
6. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
7. Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.8. Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
9. Capture militia group which storms the base.
10. Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—napthalene.11. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be in lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Whatever. I've had the debates too many times already. Your verbal abuse doesn't make you "right" or correct. Indeed, it only shows how increasingly desperate the other side of this issue on this debate is getting. I am here for the young, the curious, the open minded and people who wish to know the truth. I am not here for people who have been indoctrinated by government compulsory education, state schools, establishment universities, CFR corporate controlled media, and our party controlled political system. All of which have an interest in the current "preemptive" war making policy, reduction in civil liberties, and security fascist state that grew out of 911. These all protect the interest of big business and the global financial system.

What I am interested in are facts. This is a science forum, we should be interested in facts, and the facts are on the side of truth, not the government's conspiracy theory. I don't care if you view the documentary that Carcano posted, (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114344-9-11-was-an-inside-job&p=2971396&viewfull=1#post2971396) and I don't care if you view the documentary that I posted. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114344-9-11-was-an-inside-job&p=2975007&viewfull=1#post2975007) The point here is that the facts are posted now for the intellectually curious to find out the truth. Even if you yourself wish to be among the knowledgeable instead of slinging accusations, insults and feigning incredulousness, now is your opportunity instead of acting like a child.

Most adults, and experts who know how realpolitik work will tell you it is far more likely that Mossad and the CIA were instrumental in making sure that those planes got through strategic air command's air defenses, rather than it just being a colossal blunder. That just doesn't happen. If you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead. If you want to get educated, watch the videos, do some of your own research, and stop listening and watching corporate media. Hell, even foreign media that isn't connected to the global network knows the truth.

No, you're here for the suckers, the saps, and the credulous. Your argument relies on misinformation and majestic claims you support only with assertions that it would take an idiot to disagree, or some variation on that trope. You spout pseudo-scientific nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked for years, and shut yourself off from logic and reason by dismissing every argument as being made by "the indoctrinated." You epitomize intellectual laziness. Even your style is familiar, obviously copy-pasted from the endless "Truther" websites which in turn do nothing more than regurgitate rote from the Loose Change flicks and Truther loons cashing in on a tragedy by selling books to the suckers, the saps, and the credulous who write the websites in the first place.

It's all one big circle of stupid.

No, you're here for the suckers, the saps, and the credulous. Your argument relies on misinformation and majestic claims you support only with assertions that it would take an idiot to disagree, or some variation on that trope. You spout pseudo-scientific nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked for years, and shut yourself off from logic and reason by dismissing every argument as being made by "the indoctrinated." You epitomize intellectual laziness. Even your style is familiar, obviously copy-pasted from the endless "Truther" websites which in turn do nothing more than regurgitate rote from the Loose Change flicks and Truther loons cashing in on a tragedy by selling books to the suckers, the saps, and the credulous who write the websites in the first place.

It's all one big circle of stupid.

(Standing Ovation!)

Who said that? I simply said that there would be no need to kill three thousands Americans to achieve that goal. Operation Northwoods speaks to that point, because it proposes operations that amount to no actual casualties.

I'm not sure what Operation Mongoose has to do with this, though.

Northwoods was also rejected and according to McNamara:


(Some fifty years later when asked about the plot by journalist David Talbot, Robert McNamara drew a blank. "I have absolutely zero recollection of it. But I sure as hell would have rejected it," McNamara said, adding, "I really can't believe that anyone was proposing such provocative acts in Miami. How stupid!"

Isn't this thread just going to be killed?

psik

Isn't this thread just going to be killed?

psik


Not anymore, Stryder lifted the ban on 9/11 threads. How have ya been psikey? Long time, no see. You ever figure out how much steel and concrete were used in the towers? :)

Not anymore, Stryder lifted the ban on 9/11 threads. How have ya been psikey? Long time, no see. You ever figure out how much steel and concrete were used in the towers? :)

I have been doing OK. Merely comatised with shock by the Irony of Curiosity. :D

The NIST admitted in their report there was "roughly 200,000 tons of steel". 100,000 in each tower. There is still no specifications from them for the amount of concrete. Data from before 9/11 says 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That would come to more than 300,000 tons of concrete per tower.

The problem is distribution!!! Skyscrapers must be BOTTOM HEAVY. So how could the top 15% of any skyscraper fall straight down and destroy everything below? A little matter of the Conservation of Momentum and the energy required to disable the supports that had to be strong enough for the static load plus some safety factor.

So we have the Irony of Curiosity. LOL

Scientists can find Higgs Bosons and do a fantastic robotic landing of a 2000 pound rover on Mars but they can't ask obvious questions about the physics of skyscrapers in ten years. Where has an engineering school even tried to make a physical model that can completely collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

But we keep hearing this "Inside Job" crap. I don't care who did it or why anymore. The crime is now the physics profession not resolving this rubbish in ten years. Either the top of the north tower could destroy the rest in less than 30 seconds or it couldn't. They should have explained it in detail either way.

But how can they say that airliners could not have done it after all of these years? If they do then they must explain why they didn't tell us in 2002. And so many people who claim they understand Newtonian physics would end up with egg on their faces. This is a HUGE ego problem now.

Of course physics is incapable of giving a damn.

psik

Was it the United States government? I don't see why. Are their players in the United States government who knew about this, and planned it? I do believe.

The question is why.

I sometimes wonder if it's fear that drives people like you to these fucking absurd conspiracy theories. I mean, it's scary to think that a group of fundamentalist scumbags on the other side of the planet can do something so horrible. But there's nothing extraordinary about what they did. Carrying boxcutters onto an airplane? Easy. Hijacking an airplane with those boxcutters and false threats of a bomb? Easy. Flying them into buildings? Nothing that some lessons at a flight school or two couldn't take care of. It's pretty incredible that the buildings fell down, but it's certainly easier to see that happening than to imagine a scenario in which several buildings were wired for detonation with no one being the wiser. That's akin to saying the earth rotates because God spun us like a top.

Physics is not about imagining scenarios. At least not 300 year old Newtonian Physics is not.

Arabs with box cutters cannot change the Laws of Physics. Neither can the CIA or the Mossad.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories, then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50, and the next 65 and then 80 and then 95. So all of the way down the building had to get stronger and therefore heavier. That is true of all skyscrapers. So this presents a problem just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. How could a smaller lighter mass accelerate stronger and heavier masses and destroy the supports which must have held them while doing the destruction in less than triple the free fall time of 9.2 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in history of science. Why should we care what they say about the Higgs Boson? They have really made an Irony of Curiosity. How do you get to Mars without Newtonian Physics?

So the psychological issue is about all of the people who cannot figure out the grade school physics because they hate the conclusion it would force them to.

psik

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

OK.


Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories . . . .

To maintain a constant velocity then the stories being crushed would have to support exactly the same weight that they would have when they were intact. Do you think that it is reasonable to expect a building to be just as strong after being hit by hundreds of thousands of tons of falling concrete and steel as it was while it was intact? If so, nothing about structural failure will make any sense to you.


But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

Exactly. It should have taken 9.2 seconds if somehow the structure of the rest of the building had been magically "blown away" by secret demolition charges or something. That didn't happen, and thus the remainder of the structure provided some (but not a lot of) resistance to the collapse.

OK. To maintain a constant velocity then the stories being crushed would have to support exactly the same weight that they would have when they were intact. Do you think that it is reasonable to expect a building to be just as strong after being hit by hundreds of thousands of tons of falling concrete and steel as it was while it was intact? If so, nothing about structural failure will make any sense to you.

That question makes no sense.

My example was to demonstrate the impossibility of the 90 stories being destroyed at a constant velocity.

The total mass of the building is estimated at 500,000 tons so the top 14 stories of the north tower would not have been hundreds of thousands of tons.


Exactly. It should have taken 9.2 seconds if somehow the structure of the rest of the building had been magically "blown away" by secret demolition charges or something. That didn't happen, and thus the remainder of the structure provided some (but not a lot of) resistance to the collapse.

So you don't understand what the word CONTROLLED means. It means it does what the person who designed the process decided to happen. But if it was a mass falling from above onto an intact structure then it could onlly do what the physics dictates.

Which means it should be reproducible by experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

This is part of why this crap goes on and on and on. People keep arguing vague bullsh!t and can't support anything they say.

psik

...9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in history of science. ...

Your comment is a farce, as if there would be much measurable difference between a floor collapsing and one that was blown up on purpose. None of the floors were designed to take as much a 1 foot of free falling building, they were designed for relatively static loads only (and wind). As soon as one floor starts to collapse, that moving mass is so heavy that it's almost unstoppable. Perhaps there was a difference in time between the trade centers collapsing and how fast they would have collapsed in the event of a deliberate demolition, but we would be talking about fractions of a second, well within the margin of error, assuming you are measuring based on a crappy video.

Your comment is a farce, as if there would be much measurable difference between a floor collapsing and one that was blown up on purpose. None of the floors were designed to take as much a 1 foot of free falling building, they were designed for relatively static loads only (and wind). As soon as one floor starts to collapse, that moving mass is so heavy that it's almost unstoppable. Perhaps there was a difference in time between the trade centers collapsing and how fast they would have collapsed in the event of a deliberate demolition, but we would be talking about fractions of a second, well within the margin of error, assuming you are measuring based on a crappy video.

What is the difference between a FLOOR and LEVEL?

By floor are you talking about the floor assembly outside the core?

Can you even tell us what that concrete floor slab weighed? Have you ever seen it specified anywhere? It can be computed from the dimensions and the density but we never see it. It was 600 tons. How much did the corrugated pans and all of the trusses weigh? I don't know I have never seen that. My guess is between 150 and 250 tons. Why do we never see it? How many connections were there all around the perimeter and the core? How often is that mentioned.

But in the core there were horizontal beams. So if the upper core fell the horizontal beams would have to impact each other. It is the increasing thickness of the columns around the perimeter and in the core and the horizontal beams that increased the weight of the LEVELS. The floors were mostly the same.

But those columns would require energy to bend and dislocate and the only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass so it would slow down until it ran out and the conservation of momentum would be a factor also.

So how could that building come down in less than 26 seconds. Get accurate data and explain it. Don't just make CLAIMS about floors.

Physics without DATA. That is a FARCE!

Let's see your experiment. Here is mine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

The GREAT Ryan Mackey explains modeling at the beginning but he has never actually built and tested one that I know of. And he has not contacted me anywhere since I put up that video. Do you suppose he has never seen it?

The paper loops are as weak as possible relative to the static load. A bigger heavier test that our so called engineering schools could do would be better to reduce the square cube law effect. So why hasn't any engineering school done a test. Oh yeah, we are supposed to BELIEVE people who can wave degrees in our faces even though they don't collect and report decent data. :D

psik

That question makes no sense.

Then perhaps a basic physics text will help you out.


My example was to demonstrate the impossibility of the 90 stories being destroyed at a constant velocity.

I agree; that is impossible. It will be destroyed much more quickly since it can no longer support the weight of the upper stories.


The total mass of the building is estimated at 500,000 tons so the top 14 stories of the north tower would not have been hundreds of thousands of tons.

Correct. As each story collapses, its weight is added to the mass accelerating towards the ground, thus making collapse of later floors even more rapid.


So you don't understand what the word CONTROLLED means. It means it does what the person who designed the process decided to happen. But if it was a mass falling from above onto an intact structure then it could onlly do what the physics dictates.

Precisely! And what physics dictates is that it will take 9.2 seconds to collapse without resistance. Since there was some resistance from the lower floors (but not much since the impact load was many times in excess of what it was designed to withstand) it took longer. Simple physics.


Which means it should be reproducible by experiment.

?? No, it shouldn't. Even the two towers didn't fall after the same amount of time, in the same way, or in the same amount of time. It is an inherently chaotic event.

However, if you want to build a few World Trade Centers and fly 767's into them to see what happens, knock yourself out.

Correct. As each story collapses, its weight is added to the mass accelerating towards the ground, thus making collapse of later floors even more rapid.

This is back to the FLOOR versus LEVEL again.

How have you computed the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL.

It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop in my model. Where is the data on the amount of energy needed to collapse each level of the WTC which had to increase down the building?

Physics without DATA again. :cool: So intelligent. How about Physics books without data.

You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without correct distribution of steel and concrete data. Oh yeah, just make assumptions and do averages. Is that how they design skyscrapers? :D

psik

I doubt every floor was exactly the same. Yes, they had a blueprint, but often those get modified as the building goes up, and this was the first of this kind, so no doubt that was done a lot, without documenting every minor thing. Can you find perfectly accurate plans for each floor of other major buildings that are only half the WTC's age?

Where is the data on the amount of energy needed to collapse each level of the WTC which had to increase down the building?

There is none. Levels vary in terms of structure; internal walls are different, HVAC systems vary, sprinkler systems vary in complexity. Elevator banks extend to some floors and not others, changing the core structure. Some floors have lobbies, some don't. Furniture adds mass. Paper adds fuel and mass. People add mass and squish factor.


You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without correct distribution of steel and concrete data. Oh yeah, just make assumptions and do averages. Is that how they design skyscrapers?

Yes. And if you want something that will really bake your noodle - that's how they compute weight and balance on airliners as well.

I doubt every floor was exactly the same. Yes, they had a blueprint, but often those get modified as the building goes up, and this was the first of this kind, so no doubt that was done a lot, without documenting every minor thing. Can you find perfectly accurate plans for each floor of other major buildings that are only half the WTC's age?

86 of the floor assemblies were made of prefabricated modules. The biggest difference was probably variation in consistency of the concrete slab. 86 slabs of all about 600 tons would have some variation, but I would bet less than 5% and I suspect the variation would decrease going up the building as the workers got more experience doing the same job.

But they had to have some kind of values to determine how strong to design the supports.

So in TEN YEARS why don't we have a number for the weight of a floor assembly plus or minus some margin of error?

Like I said, "A Scientific Farce".

People are just making excuses for the farce.

psik

I sometimes wonder if it's fear that drives people like you to these fucking absurd conspiracy theories. I mean, it's scary to think that a group of fundamentalist scumbags on the other side of the planet can do something so horrible. But there's nothing extraordinary about what they did. Carrying boxcutters onto an airplane? Easy. Hijacking an airplane with those boxcutters and false threats of a bomb? Easy. Flying them into buildings? Nothing that some lessons at a flight school or two couldn't take care of. It's pretty incredible that the buildings fell down, but it's certainly easier to see that happening than to imagine a scenario in which several buildings were wired for detonation with no one being the wiser. That's akin to saying the earth rotates because God spun us like a top.

[...]

I think I get it, though. I think understand that we retreat to these nonsensical fantasies because it's better to assume that something so terrible is only possible when it comes from within. There's a sense of invincibility gained when one decides to believe that we are the only ones capable of hurting us. It's comforting to think that we can't be touched by something so low.

Yeah, part of it is a navel-gazing insistence on believing that one's own government controls everything. The idea that it might not be in control - or, worse, that the world is simply a chaotic place to begin with, without anybody particularly controlling things - is outright terrifying to some types. They will swallow an awful lot of nonsense before they will confront that prospect.

Another part of it is ego: conspiracy theories always work by pandering to the viewer's self-image. Take these Truther conspiracies: they all fundamentally tell you that all the scientific experts are wrong, and that you can know better than these PhD structural engineers by watching a few minutes of news footage. The masses of people out there are all "sheeple," but you're brave and informed and know the Real Truth. Of course this is silly on its face and so most adults won't go in for it. But for the subset of the population that is susceptible to it - people that have some need to feel superior and "in on the secret" - it's irresistible. Give those types a few sites full of news footage and some handy self-sealing tropes and they'll run with it for literally decades (until some new event happens to create some new conspiracy theories about).

The point here is that they're more interested in bolstering their self-image by running around calling people "sheeple" than they are in coming to grips with any questions of fact. So scientific argument is never going to get anywhere with them. It's just that many more opportunities for them to denounce others as "sheeple." So this truly is one of those situations that can't be addressed by any strategy other than "don't feed the trolls." Or, preferably, "don't tolerate conspiracy trolls trolling your forum in the first place."

psikeyhackr

All the questions you have asked have been answered, here are the best scientific investigations and explanations of the cause and sequence of the collapses...

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

Their findings are at the bottom of this pdf(before all the illustrations of floors) section 10-9 starts on page 337.

Grumpy:cool:

...But those columns would require energy to bend and dislocate and the only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass so it would slow down until it ran out and the conservation of momentum would be a factor also.......

psik

I agree that the falling mass would be slowed slightly by whatever it had to impact coming down. Where we disagree is how much they would slow down, and I claim it would be negligible. The lower floors would collapse practically instantly. You say that the lower floors were built more solidly. I would respond by mentioning that the falling mass is also ever increasing and accelerating. Whatever slowing might occur could only happen as it started to fall, after that the forces quickly become enormous. The difference between practically instant and free fall is within the margin of error of your observation.

I agree that the falling mass would be slowed slightly by whatever it had to impact coming down. Where we disagree is how much they would slow down, and I claim it would be negligible. The lower floors would collapse practically instantly. You say that the lower floors were built more solidly. I would respond by mentioning that the falling mass is also ever increasing and accelerating. Whatever slowing might occur could only happen as it started to fall, after that the forces quickly become enormous. The difference between practically instant and free fall is within the margin of error of your observation.

Here is a Python program using nothing but the conservation of momentum.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306#64306

The data file makes it possible to change the mass distribution. Equal masses gives 12 seconds and increasing the mass a lot raises it to 12 seconds. That change alone demonstrates that accurate data is required.

But that program makes no compensation for the energy required to disable the supports. So the time can only go up from 12 seconds. If it doubled the time then that would be too long for what happened on 9/11.

Like said, scientific farce. What do you have to support your CLAIMS?

You keep saying FLOORS. Are you talking about entire LEVELS or the FLOORS outside the core?

psik

Here is a Python program using nothing but the conservation of momentum.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306#64306

The data file makes it possible to change the mass distribution. Equal masses gives 12 seconds and increasing the mass a lot raises it to 12 seconds. That change alone demonstrates that accurate data is required.

But that program makes no compensation for the energy required to disable the supports. So the time can only go up from 12 seconds. If it doubled the time then that would be too long for what happened on 9/11.

Like said, scientific farce. What do you have to support your CLAIMS?

You keep saying FLOORS. Are you talking about entire LEVELS or the FLOORS outside the core?

psik

I'm trying not to get too technical about floors and levels, I don't think it makes a difference. I think it's unrealistic to double the time it takes to fall. We are talking about catastrophic failure, mere hundredths of a second is more like it. A floor or level doesn't have the strength on it's own to resist a falling floor, even falling just a short way (inches). Think of a landslide, even then the mass of the earth below the landslide often isn't adequate to halt it's acceleration.

I'm trying not to get too technical about floors and levels, I don't think it makes a difference..

Well there is the end of the discussion right there. If you think that is technical forget it.

psik

Sorry to but in here but are you modeling the collapse of a building with a stack of washers and paper?

Sorry to but in here but are you modeling the collapse of a building with a stack of washers and paper?

If you think that's bad, I once encountered (at a different forum) a Truther who insisted on modelling the collapse of a skyscraper as a toothpick being stepped on. Seriously.

psikeyhackr

All the questions you have asked have been answered, here are the best scientific investigations and explanations of the cause and sequence of the collapses...

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

Their findings are at the bottom of this pdf(before all the illustrations of floors) section 10-9 starts on page 337.

Grumpy:cool:

Utter Rubbish!

I downloaded and burned the NCSTAR1 report to DVD years ago. It does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. They never talk about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. In three places they admit that they need the distribution of mass down the tower to analyse the airliner impact and then they never do it.

It is a scientific FARCE.

You people behave as though just saying something makes it true. That is the interesting thing about doing experiments. They don't care what anybody says.

psik

Sorry to but in here but are you modeling the collapse of a building with a stack of washers and paper?

Why don't you research the square cube law?

My model is less than 4 pounds. The WTC was in the vicinity of 500,000 TONS.

You figure out how the square cube law relates to that.

Has something been stopping you from building a physical model that can sustain damage while being collapsed by its top 15% or less? A house of cards does not count because the cards remain intact.

psik

Why don't you research the square cube law?

It says (basically) that smaller models do not scale to larger ones. Which is why your models won't tell you anything useful.


My model is less than 4 pounds. The WTC was in the vicinity of 500,000 TONS.

Yep. Which means that your model has no equivalence to the actual structure. It would be like analyzing a grasshopper's leg and then using that to prove that elephants can jump 300 feet.

It's all one big circle of stupid.

You mean those who don't do their own research? How dare you accuse me of plagiarism and not doing my own research. Do you do your own research? Have you viewed the documents or watched any of the press conferences, investigations, or hearings and made up your own mind? I seriously doubt it. You probably listen to the talking heads, the politicians, the educators, and believe what the opinion makers write.

When you think for yourself, you are less apt to be lied to.

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf (http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf)

psikeyhackr

All the questions you have asked have been answered, here are the best scientific investigations and explanations of the cause and sequence of the collapses...

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

Their findings are at the bottom of this pdf(before all the illustrations of floors) section 10-9 starts on page 337.

Grumpy:cool:

But real Scientists aren't allowed to try to reproduce their findings.

I applaud psikeyhackr's efforts. The road he has chosen will eventually lead him to realize that politics and science make bad bed fellows. :p But what can you do? Government from it's origins and infancy originally married the church, and it was theocracies that invented and founded the University system. Now look who has their grimy claws latched onto it. You want a history of political and heraldic conspiracy? Science could never be controlled by the ruling classes if the university system hadn't originally been controlled by the Church. Now there's irony for you. Science is essentially atheist in nature but owes it structure of education and training to the theists.


Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far unreplicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/ (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/)

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf (http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf)

You mean those who don't do their own research? How dare you accuse me of plagiarism and not doing my own research.

By the fact that your arguments are exactly the same as every other Truther loon with an ISP. Unless you consider copy/pasting from Truther websites to be "research," of course.


Do you do your own research? Have you viewed the documents or watched any of the press conferences, investigations, or hearings and made up your own mind? I seriously doubt it. You probably listen to the talking heads, the politicians, the educators, and believe what the opinion makers write.

You mean, do I listen to the experts? Yes, I do. As opposed to what? Listening to the kooks who vanity publish their articles and call them "peer reviewed?"


When you think for yourself, you are less apt to be lied to.

How true.


But Scientists aren't allowed to try to reproduce their findings.

Even you must cringe at Fullerton's logical gaffe. Concluding that withholding data regarding the collapse therefore means the study is pseudo-scientific and "faith-based" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) is a blinding non-sequitur. Apply that logic elsewhere:

Because the government won't allow access to Area 51, therefore it is not really an Air Force base but a depository for alien technology.

Because Mitt Romney won't divulge his stance on anything, he therefore has no stance on anything.

Because Suzy won't show you her boobs, she therefore does not actually have boobs.

psikeyhackr


Utter Rubbish!

I downloaded and burned the NCSTAR1 report to DVD years ago.

Too bad you didn't bother to read them, it would have forstalled you making idiotic statements like this...


It does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

The only concrete in either Tower 1 or 2 above ground level was the lightweight covering of the floor trusses and the equipment floors(density of the concrete, area of the floor trusses and depth of the cover is all information contained in the reports, as well as total weight of the equipment floors and all equipment on those floors). The Twin Towers had no weight bearing structural concrete at all above the ground floor with the exception of the equipment floors


They never talk about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

Yes they do, pointing out that the center of mass had no time to move from the center of the acre sized footprint of the building in the short time after collapse initiated. The tilt rotated around that center of gravity(putting the interface in shear)and then the center of mass fell directly downward, as the center of mass has no choice but to do. Huge buildings do not have the structural strength to topple off to the side, and no force was available to push it over the side(such as an earthquake or foundation collapse). NIST has diagrams and everything detailing this effect


In three places they admit that they need the distribution of mass down the tower to analyse the airliner impact and then they never do it.

They admit nothing as they have done nothing but investigate what happened, the aircraft impact damage was extensively studied, there's a whole pdf dedicated to that one subject. The Towers survived the plane impacts, blast damage to the cheap, spray on fire insulation and several hundred thousand pounds of fuel caused massive fires that weakened the surviving structure to the point of failure and once the building fell ONE FLOOR the surviving structure, largely because of it's design elements, could only slow the avalanche a few percentage points.


It is a scientific FARCE.

No, what Truthers do is pseudo-scientific farce, NIST does the real thing.

What caused the events of 9-11 was religious extremism and physics, nothing else was required nor evident.

Grumpy:cool:

Why don't you research the square cube law?

My model is less than 4 pounds. The WTC was in the vicinity of 500,000 TONS.

You figure out how the square cube law relates to that.

...You're serious about this?? You're really serious.

OK. I'm not a physicist, so this is off the top of my head. How does the square law relate to the rigidity of building materials? Paper crumples. Concrete doesn't.


Has something been stopping you from building a physical model that can sustain damage while being collapsed by its top 15% or less?

Yes. The realization that such a model would have no relevance to the question unless I could replicate the fragility of materials within it, or scale physics down to apply to such a model in the small scale in the same way that it really applies to massive structures.

Which I guess means reworking gravitation on my toolbench. Sorry, but I'm not rated for a zero-point field outside the city limits. Maybe you should call Green Lantern.

Here's a probably relevant biological example: a mouse dropped from height does not experience the same relative damage that an elephant dropped over a size-equivalent distance does.

The only concrete in either Tower 1 or 2 above ground level was the lightweight covering of the floor trusses and the equipment floors(density of the concrete, area of the floor trusses and depth of the cover is all information contained in the reports, as well as total weight of the equipment floors and all equipment on those floors). The Twin Towers had no weight bearing structural concrete at all above the ground floor with the exception of the equipment floors

So explain all of the sources from before 9/11 that say this:

The towers, made from 200,000 tons of steel and 425,00 cubic yards of concrete

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/104998metro11-01-03.htm

The so called light weight concrete was 110 lb. per cubic foot whereas the NORMAL concrete was 150 lb. per cubic foot. Not all that much difference. The nice thing about electronic documents is there searchability. I looked at every mention of concrete in the entire report. The NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers and in 4 years not one person has supplied a number and reported its location in the report. Nitwits just keep claiming it is there.


Yes they do, pointing out that the center of mass had no time to move from the center of the acre sized footprint of the building in the short time after collapse initiated. The tilt rotated around that center of gravity(putting the interface in shear)and then the center of mass fell directly downward, as the center of mass has no choice but to do. Huge buildings do not have the structural strength to topple off to the side, and no force was available to push it over the side(such as an earthquake or foundation collapse). NIST has diagrams and everything detailing this effect

The center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower is also never mentioned in the report. Searching and checking "center of gravity" and "center of mass" was much easier than searching on concrete. It is mentioned much less often. They used "center of mass" when they were talking about the plane, and "center of gravity" for the simulated components for their computer model.

Since the NIST admit that the core supported 53% of the weight of the building the location of the center of mass is important because it did not have to move outside that acre of floor, only outside the area of the core. That is another subject not discussed. Ryan Mackey also implies it would have to move beyond the outer edge of the building. We are constantly bombarded with this over simplified, nonsense physics.

psik

We are constantly bombarded with this over simplified, nonsense physics.

psik

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/46946106/demo.jpg

Pot meet kettle.

...You're serious about this?? You're really serious.

OK. I'm not a physicist, so this is off the top of my head. How does the square law relate to the rigidity of building materials? Paper crumples. Concrete doesn't.

The square cube law relates to strength of material in relation to its size and weight and is important to modeling that behavior of a very large massive object on a small scale.

Suppose we built a 1/10 scale model of the WTC of the exact same material. It would be 136 feet tall and 20 feet wide. But because it is 3 dimensional it would weigh 1/1000th as much but the cross sectional area of the steel columns would be 1/100th the area. So in fact the model would be TEN TIMES as strong as the WTC in relation to its own weight.

How can you do a gravitational collapse that depends on weight and strength if the model is actually STRONGER THAN THE REAL THING.

That is why my model is PAPER. I could test the strength of the paper loops in relation to the weight of the washers so they are AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the STATIC LOAD. Go to JREF and read their idiotic mantra STATIC AND DYNAMIC, STATIC AND DYNAMIC.

The paper loops can support the STATIC LOAD which is what the supports in a skyscraper must do. But they are crushed under the DYNAMIC LOAD. But that requires energy which slows the falling mass and eventually STOP IT.

The WTC was 400,000+ tons. Obviously it could not be built of paper. But a small model demonstrating the physical principles cannot be built of steel and concrete. Or if it can, I want to see it.

People confuse SCALE models with PHYSICS models. Mine is a physics model.

And Galileo figured out the square cube law 400 years ago. Grade school kids should know it today.

http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

psik

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/46946106/demo.jpg

Pot meet kettle.

Oh yeah.

There is no gravity there. There is no acceleration.

There is no potential energy. There is no kinetic energy.

Your argument is so impressive.

I presume people's whose only argument is ridicule will only influence morons.

psik

psikeyhackr


So explain all of the sources from before 9/11 that say this:

The towers, made from 200,000 tons of steel and 425,00 cubic yards of concrete

They did not specifically separate out the concrete in the foundations(where all but a small amount was to be found)and the fact that there was absolutely no structural or weight bearing concrete in the Twin Towers above ground level, with the SOLE exception being the equipment floors. If you want to know how much concrete was above ground level, determine the area(about an acre)times the depth per floor(about 4 inches), multiply by the density and multiply by the number of floors(all information easily found in the NIST reports), then add in the equipment levels(detailed in the reports)and Viola! your question is answered!


Since the NIST admit that the core supported 53% of the weight of the building the location of the center of mass is important because it did not have to move outside that acre of floor, only outside the area of the core.

It didn't even need to do that, once the steel beams were no longer lined up they supported no weight at all and fell past each other like a collapsing telescope. The structural strength of the core was only relevant as long as the beams were intact and under design conditions, the rotation of the top block bent or broke those connections due to shear forces(the bottom of the top block moved opposite the direction of the top of the block, but the center of gravity stayed over the footprint)and the beams in the top block fell past the beams of the remainder of the building, which provided no resistance at all as they passed. The building was mostly air(again, above ground level), it had no steel reinforced concrete structure(agl), even in the core. It was a tube in a tube with non structural load bearing truss floors(the floors provided bracing to keep the beams vertical). All structural loads were supplied by the steel beams in the core and the perimeter frame. Rubble did not need to overcome the strength of that frame, it only had to overcome the strength of the floor diaphragms(actually, only their connections). Without bracing even the strongest beams in the building would fall over like overcooked spaghetti or(as actually happened)fail under the load, the heat and the distortions caused by aircraft impact damage and bend and break, leading to a cascade of other structural failures and catastrophic, global collapse. The floor diaphragms actually pulled on the frames when they sagged, leading to even further distortions in the supporting beams, in places.


Ryan Mackey also implies it would have to move beyond the outer edge of the building

And where did the energy to move the several tens of thousands of tons of the top block sideways over 500 ft in under a second come from? You realize, I hope, that you are talking about MEGATONS of energy, even given 100% conversion into motion. How was all this energy applied in such a way as not to instantly vaporize the top block, crumple all it's steel and NOT vaporize a small segment of New York City? The top block's center of gravity remained fixed above the center of the footprint(within a few percentage points)and fell straight down and Ryan Mackey is ignorant, at best, in this opinion.

Again, all that is needed or evidenced to explain the events of 9-11 was religious extremism and physics. Nothing else required or in evidence.

Grumpy:cool:

Oh yeah.

There is no gravity there. There is no acceleration.

There is no potential energy. There is no kinetic energy.

Your argument is so impressive.

I presume people's whose only argument is ridicule will only influence morons.

psik

Ridicule is all you retarded truthers deserve. Talk about moron...I'm not the one who's spent some 4 years trying to figure out how much concrete was in the towers.

The paper loops can support the STATIC LOAD which is what the supports in a skyscraper must do. But they are crushed under the DYNAMIC LOAD. But that requires energy which slows the falling mass and eventually STOP IT.

Correct. Which would make sense if the WTC was designed with materials that were designed to crush and absorb energy - and that had a central core that was not movable by any force that the model might see.

Of course the WTC was nothing like that.

Here's a model that's a bit closer to the scale of the WTC. It is knocked down by firing projectiles at it. The results are quite interesting. The first projectile knocks a hole in the structure - but it remains standing. (Is this sounding familiar yet?) The second projectile knocks another hole in the structure - and for a moment it still continues to stand. Then, as the structure starts to flex, the remaining load bearing members fail and it collapses. If you time it carefully you'll notice that it falls just slightly slower than freefall speeds. (Sounds a little more familiar now, perhaps?)

The difference - this model was made with independent structural elements that were NOT designed to crush, and it had no indestructible core. They were quite strong individually, but not strongly attached to each other. Thus when enough of them failed the failure progressed rapidly and the entire model collapsed almost as fast as gravity could take it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBbz2eIoVDQ

They did not specifically separate out the concrete in the foundations(where all but a small amount was to be found)and the fact that there was absolutely no structural or weight bearing concrete in the Twin Towers above ground level, with the SOLE exception being the equipment floors. If you want to know how much concrete was above ground level, determine the area(about an acre)times the depth per floor(about 4 inches), multiply by the density and multiply by the number of floors(all information easily found in the NIST reports), then add in the equipment levels(detailed in the reports)and Viola! your question is answered!

All you have to do is compute the volumes of all of the basement levels and you will see that only accounts for a bit more than 50% of 425,000 cubic yards and that assumes the basement are solid blocks with no empty space.

LOL

So your only real argument is TURN OFF YOU BRAIN AND BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE TOLD.

So we are still left with no explanation for that 425,000 cubic yards.

psik

Ridicule is all you retarded truthers deserve. Talk about moron...I'm not the one who's spent some 4 years trying to figure out how much concrete was in the towers.

You just spent it believing the problem was solvable without the information.

But still neither you nor any engineering school has built a reasonable model that can completely collapse. Curious that it hasn't been done for such a simple physics problem. The nation that put men on the Moon can't supply such simple data. 10,000 page report for $20,000,000. :D

And a citezenry that can't figure out it makes no sense.

psik

But still neither you nor any engineering school has built a reasonable model that can completely collapse. Curious that it hasn't been done for such a simple physics problem.

See above. Model built by Kettering University collapses completely. Cool video as well.

Next objection?

psikeyhackr


All you have to do is compute the volumes of all of the basement levels and you will see that only accounts for a bit more than 50% of 425,000 cubic yards and that assumes the basement are solid blocks with no empty space.

LOL

So your only real argument is TURN OFF YOU BRAIN AND BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE TOLD.

So we are still left with no explanation for that 425,000 cubic yards.

Actually, the footprint of the structure below ground level is several times the footprint of the building, and it was multifloor(subfloors, in this case). It is simply a fact that the Twin Towers were built without any load bearing concrete above street level. All the structural concrete was below street level. If you don't know that simple fact, you know nothing about how those buildings were constructed, nor do you understand even the simplest things about how they collapsed. But, since you're a truther, I repeat myself.

Grumpy:cool:

The square cube law relates to strength of material in relation to its size and weight and is important to modeling that behavior of a very large massive object on a small scale.

Suppose we built a 1/10 scale model of the WTC of the exact same material. It would be 136 feet tall and 20 feet wide. But because it is 3 dimensional it would weigh 1/1000th as much but the cross sectional area of the steel columns would be 1/100th the area. So in fact the model would be TEN TIMES as strong as the WTC in relation to its own weight.

How can you do a gravitational collapse that depends on weight and strength if the model is actually STRONGER THAN THE REAL THING.

That is why my model is PAPER. I could test the strength of the paper loops in relation to the weight of the washers so they are AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the STATIC LOAD. Go to JREF and read their idiotic mantra STATIC AND DYNAMIC, STATIC AND DYNAMIC.

But this is the point exactly. You cannot reproduce the physics of the collapse, since you cannot generate a model with materials that behave in the same way at the small scale. Or perhaps you could, but you'd be researching them a long, long time. Instead you've chosen a paper-and-washers way that does not approach the physics of the original system in the small scale. Paper is not a simulator of tiny concrete and steel. You cannot honestly expect it to behave in the same way. I'm no physicist, but it seems clear that the choice of materials influences the reaction in the model. There's no point discussing it.

But this is the point exactly. You cannot reproduce the physics of the collapse, since you cannot generate a model with materials that behave in the same way at the small scale. Or perhaps you could, but you'd be researching them a long, long time. Instead you've chosen a paper-and-washers way that does not approach the physics of the original system in the small scale. Paper is not a simulator of tiny concrete and steel. You cannot honestly expect it to behave in the same way. I'm no physicist, but it seems clear that the choice of materials influences the reaction in the model. There's no point discussing it.

Tiny concrete and steel would be TOO STRONG. Needles between the washers would not collapse at all. It would take a minimum of three for support.

How do you know they are not behaving in the same way? Did you even know what the square cube law was before I mentioned it?

Disabling the steel supports in the WTC from above would require energy. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Those supports had to be strong enough to hold the static load. Therefore it must slow down and have less energy to collapse the next level.

That is what my model does. It would be better with a bigger model, say ten tons with 50 or more levels 100 feet tall and each individual level designed to be as weak as possible but I don't gave the resources to do that. But our engineering schools do. So it is certainly curious that none of them has even mentioned trying to do it in ten years.

But then people who have decided what they prefer to believe just constantly come up with EXCUSES. 400 year old physics is too difficult for them.

But then aren't you implying that paper is stronger than steel. LOL

psik

psikeyhackr

Actually, the footprint of the structure below ground level is several times the footprint of the building, and it was multifloor(subfloors, in this case). It is simply a fact that the Twin Towers were built without any load bearing concrete above street level. All the structural concrete was below street level. If you don't know that simple fact, you know nothing about how those buildings were constructed, nor do you understand even the simplest things about how they collapsed. But, since you're a truther, I repeat myself.

Grumpy:cool:

The WTC complex was interconnected below ground but that does not mean those interconnections provided support. Constantly muddying the waters, eh Grumpy.

psik

psikeyhackr


Disabling the steel supports in the WTC from above would require energy. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Those supports had to be strong enough to hold the static load. Therefore it must slow down and have less energy to collapse the next level

The steel column's strength had no effect on slowing the collapses, as there was no connection(and therefore no way for them to exert any Resistance)once the collapse initiated(in fact, collapse was initiated by the bending, snapping and disconnection of the steel beams). The only thing the falling rubble had to overcome was the connections for the trusses that made up the floors. Even very strong steel beams exert no force on similar beams if they are not aligned vertically and braced in that vertical line(IE intact and as designed)but are instead falling past each other. You keep talking as if the designed in strength could slow down the vertical avalanche of debris and it just has no physical ability to do so, the weak link being the floor truss connections. Once they start bending, snapping and falling past each other they offer no resistance at all, and once the multi million pound upper block fell one floor(about 12-14 feet)no force on Earth other than solid rock was going to stop it or even slow it down appreciably(kinetic energy, look it up). Most of the truss supports in the lower levels of Tower 1 were found to have been stripped off the elements of the perimeter frame.

The Twin Towers were not steel reinforced concrete(like the Empire State building is), but had a perimeter frame and steel core connected through the hat frame with the floors formed from lightweight trusses designed only to carry that floor's loads and to brace the frame and core in a vertical position and only fastened to the inner and outer frames by angle iron and bolts. They contributed nothing to the structural strength of the buildings(other than bracing). It was a tube(the core)within a tube(the perimeter frame)tied together at the top by the hat frame and at three points(the equipment floors). Structurally, there was nothing else in the building, the floors being simple diaphragms to hold the offices, etc. and not capable of carrying structural level loads.


But then aren't you implying that paper is stronger than steel. LOL

Actually, applying the square cube law, it is much stronger than the steel in the Towers and if not perforated heavily all around the perimeter and center to accurately represent the weakness of the floor truss connections it is useless garbage as legitimate science.


The WTC complex was interconnected below ground but that does not mean those interconnections provided support. Constantly muddying the waters, eh Grumpy.

Troothers are the ones muddying the water. There was exactly ZERO structural concrete above ground level outside the equipment floors. All structural forces above ground level were supplied by the core and perimeter frames and it was the failure of these structural members due to damage and heat which caused the buildings to collapse, nothing else is necessary to explain the events. Keep beating that years long dead horse, it'll get back up any time now I'm sure.

Grumpy:cool:

psikeyhackr

The steel column's strength had no effect on slowing the collapses, as there was no connection(and therefore no way for them to exert any Resistance)once the collapse initiated(in fact, collapse was initiated by the bending, snapping and disconnection of the steel beams). The only thing the falling rubble had to overcome was the connections for the trusses that made up the floors. Even very strong steel beams exert no force on similar beams if they are not aligned vertically and braced in that vertical line(IE intact and as designed)but are instead falling past each other. You keep talking as if the designed in strength could slow down the vertical avalanche of debris and it just has no physical ability to do so, the weak link being the floor truss connections.


And the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core just happen to disappear because you don't mention them.

psik

psikeyhackr


And the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core just happen to disappear because you don't mention them.

They are, after all, irrelevant considering the floors took up the majority of the area of the footprint and would have had to play the largest part in any resistance, something they were woefully inadequate to do, being designed only strong enough to carry that floors load(times 1.5 or 2 depending on source), not any of the load to hold up the whole building.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_truss2.gif

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/plan-double-trusses3.gif

Plus, the majority of the cores were taken up by elevator shafts(that's why the core was there, conceivably the building could also be built without a core, just a perimeter frame with external elevators and acre sized clear floors with no beams at all). And an elevator shaft is mostly nothing in the vertical direction, you know.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wikicorefloorplan.jpg

In Tower 2 the core could still be seen standing for a few moments after the collapse was at ground level for the floor debris and perimeter frame, probably because once the top block ceased to be a single mass the debris from the offset top(especially the hat truss structure that tied the core and perimeter frame together at the top)missed the core(the torque and shear forces "rubble-ized" the lower edge of the block almost instantly as it's area was where the initiation occurred). But like I said, since the beams were incapable of staying vertical without bracing, they soon snapped like extremely thin spaghetti and joined the rest of the rubble. The core was built much heavier than the floors and the outer perimeter frame was lightweight and strong for much the same reason and it has the same limitations as an empty soda can does. As long as it's not cut, bent, distorted, heated too much or overloaded it is a marvel of strength to weight, but when abused too much it collapses rapidly and catastrophically. Flying airliners full of fuel and people into it certainly qualifies as too much abuse, as subsequent events proved.

If they had done the same to the Empire State building there would probably have been an unholy mess, but the building would still be standing as it's steel is encased in concrete, not insulating foam(blocks and spray on)as used in the Twin Towers above ground(even the walls in the core were based on foam blocks, sheetrock being deemed too heavy and concrete out of the question). Plus the ESB is a lattice framed building with lots of cross beams throughout it's footprint something the Twin Towers only had in the core(about 1/4 of the footprint IIRC)and solid, steel reinforced, concrete floors directly connected to those cross beams(something the Twin Towers had none of, except on the equipment floors).

Grumpy:cool:

conceivably the building could also be built without a core, just a perimeter frame with external elevators and acre sized clear floors with no beams at all). And an elevator shaft is mostly nothing in the vertical direction, you know.

The horizontal beams were BETWEEN the elevator shafts.

The NIST says the core supported 53% of the weight and you say the building could have been built without it.

BRILLIANT!

But then the trusses would have had to span 200 feet.

Even more BRILLIANT!

Urich says that 86 of the floors had the same design which you have shown us such pretty pictures of even though we have all seen them before, and before and before. But didn't the 10th LEVEL of the building have to support the weight of 100 more LEVELS. How many LEVELS did the 105th story have to support? But weren't the FLOORS the same? So what was the difference in the LEVELS?

The difference is unimportant because YOU say so?

psik

psikeyhackr


The horizontal beams were BETWEEN the elevator shafts.

Yes, I know.


The NIST says the core supported 53% of the weight and you say the building could have been built without it.

I didn't say it was built that way, but recent buildings in Abu Dabbi show that it can be done that way. You can even do it with steel reinforced prestressed concrete, ever seen a really big cooling tower? They are completely hollow on the inside. The Twin Towers were designed with a core, mostly because the investors were nervous about external elevators and untested building techniques, not because it couldn't be done. The Twin Towers were designed in the same way as the Chrysler Building was, it was cutting edge technology entirely different from "traditional" skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and it allowed a 75% total usable office space per floor instead of the 50% traditional methods would allow. And, unfortunately, as in all cutting edge technologies, they had an unforeseen Achilles heel that only got exposed through a catastrophic failure. In the Titanic it was iron rivets instead of steel, in the Space Shuttle it was brittle O rings and fragile leading edges on the wing hit by foam, in the Concorde it was fuel tanks behind the landing gear, in the Twin Towers it was spray on and foam block fire protection for the steel and truss floors, aided and abetted by religious fanaticism.


But then the trusses would have had to span 200 feet.

You do know how bridges are made, don't you? 200 feet, even without using composites or carbon fiber, is well within current engineering abilities.


Urich says that 86 of the floors had the same design which you have shown us such pretty pictures of even though we have all seen them before, and before and before.

Urich is correct, and if you have seen them over and over again, why are you still so ignorant of what I am telling you? Everything I have said is in the NIST reports.


But didn't the 10th LEVEL of the building have to support the weight of 100 more LEVELS. How many LEVELS did the 105th story have to support? But weren't the FLOORS the same? So what was the difference in the LEVELS.

There were no differences in the floors and no floor carried any of the loads of any other floor. The frame and core were the sole support of the building and each floor was attached to that frame on each end, transferring it's individual live load to the frames, not to the floor below or above. So each "level" was independent of every other level. The frames themselves were stronger at the bottom, thicker steel on the spandrels of the perimeter frame and bigger cross sections on the columns, but each floor carried only it's own load to the frame. The concept of levels like in the Empire State Building(rigid, monoblock masses of steel and concrete with the full weight of the building spread throughout the footprint and each floor supporting all the floors above it)just does not apply to the floors of WTC(diaphragms in a tube designed to support only their own weight and live loads(times~2)and to transfer all that load to the frames between which they were suspended at each end).


The difference iS unimportant because YOU say so?

There was no difference, and none of this is because I say so, it's because those are the facts, deal with them.

Grumpy:cool:

I didn't say it was built that way,

I didn't accuse you of saying it was built that way.

I said:

The NIST says the core supported 53% of the weight and you say the building could have been built without it.

What you actually said was:

Plus, the majority of the cores were taken up by elevator shafts(that's why the core was there, conceivably the building could also be built without a core, just a perimeter frame with external elevators and acre sized clear floors with no beams at all).

You imply the core was there for the elevators.


You can even do it with steel reinforced prestressed concrete, ever seen a really big cooling tower? They are completely hollow on the inside. The Twin Towers were designed with a core, mostly because the investors were nervous about external elevators and untested building techniques, not because it couldn't be done. The Twin Towers were designed in the same way as the Chrysler Building was, it was cutting edge technology entirely different from "traditional" skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and it allowed a 75% total usable office space per floor instead of the 50% traditional methods would allow.

You talk all of this trash about how other buildings are constructed and leave out the steal and concrete distributions down the buildings. And cooling towers don't have much floor space to support a live load. So you like to imply a lot without stating it unambiguously. You emphasize empty elevator shafts in the core but the horizontal beams connecting the columns are there nonetheless and are irrelevant to the strength of the building because the designers knew they had to put the shafts in ahead of time.

So you dish out endless sophistry crap.

psik

So...psik, what do you believe happened that day?

So...psik, what do you believe happened that day?

Science is not about believing. Science is about investigating reality and explaining the observed phenomenon. That means getting all of the relevant data correct. Skyscrapers must support their own weight and withstand the wind. Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists. The Empire State Building was completed before the neutron was discovered.

But now we have the Irony of Curiosity. Higgs Bosons can be found and robots landed on Mars but supposedly collapsing skyscrapers cannot be explained. Of course the longer this drags on the more ridiculous the physics profession will look.

Maybe 9/11 was Science Fiction. :cool:

I don't care who did it or why. Science is more important than the country.

psik

So, basically, that was a giant "I don't fucking know". You've been harping on the whole concrete and steel mass thing for more than 4 years....but you still can't even come up with a scenario that fits the known facts better than planes and fire. If all you're conclusions are right....what caused the collapse of the twin towers, if it wasn't gravity? You won't answer, (incivility removed). That would mean committing to a theory. It's easier to just to blah blah blah about the mass of the concrete and steel, rather than cowboying up and coming up with an actually theory.

psikeyhackr


You imply the core was there for the elevators.

I imply nothing. The core was there for the elevators(and other services). And since it had to exist anyway, might as well make it a structural member, allowing the perimeter frame to be built lighter, using less steel than a coreless building would require. A coreless building gives you nearly 100% usable office space per floor, with all elevators and services on the perimeter frame.

By the way, found this chart of the different construction types..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Skyscraper_structure.png

...WTC was a type IV, an exterior framed tube. The four dots in the middle are columns that in the Twin Towers were interconnected(with additional columns)to form the core, making it a tube within a tube with the core being a bundled tube structure. Note the near complete lack of crosswise structure outside of the area of the core. That area between the core and the outer frame(where the floor trusses were)offered virtually no resistance to the falling rubble, as the floors collapsed instantly when it reached them. The Empire State Building is a type 1 with a rigid steel and concrete frame.


You talk all of this trash about how other buildings are constructed and leave out the steal and concrete distributions down the buildings.

There was zero concrete in the structural frames above ground level, and the thickness of the steel is irrelevant. As Rolls Royce said about horsepower, it was "adequate" to hold the weight of the building as long as it remained intact and once it wasn't intact it was bypassed by the rubble, like water makes it's way down the stream despite all those extremely strong boulders in it's way.

As to the failure modes of the connections between the floors and the frames...

"Above the aircraft impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to
85th in WTC 2), the failure modes were randomly distributed. However, over 90%
of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either
bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progressive
overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation
of the towers. Depending upon joint geometry, detachment of the main truss
seats occurred either by fracture in the heat-affected zone of the base material,
where the standoff plate detached from the spandrel, or through the weld metal,
where the seat angle detached from the standoff plate. Failure in both cases was
the result of a shear mechanism due to an overload condition. Exposure to fires
prior to the collapse was not found to have an effect on the failure."

http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

When you view this pdf pay particular attention to fig.2 and fig.3B as they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I have said about the truss floors is absolutely correct. The whole paper is well worth reading, it makes psi's drivel look as foolish as it actually is.

Grumpy:cool:

So, basically, that was a giant "I don't fucking know". You've been harping on the whole concrete and steel mass thing for more than 4 years....but you still can't even come up with a scenario that fits the known facts better than planes and fire. If all you're conclusions are right....what caused the collapse of the twin towers, if it wasn't gravity? You won't answer, because your too much of a pussy. That would mean committing to a theory. It's easier to just to blah blah blah about the mass of the concrete and steel, rather than cowboying up and coming up with an actually theory.

It is not my fault that you think human behavior is more important than physics.

Humans can't change physics. So if it cannot be explained how airliners could totally destroy the buildings based on ACCURATE DATA ABOUT THE TOWERS then the probability of other factors must be considered. Skyscrapers must be designed to resist gravity. So how the steel and concrete are distributed down the tower has to be considered in that.

So why hasn't any engineering school built a model that can completely collapse in ELEVEN YEARS?

All you can dish out is egoistic drivel. Grumpy does better than that. Do you actually expect me to give a damn about that after this much time? I just regard that nonsense as the advertisement of incompetence.

psik

So if airliners and their fuel didn't destroy the towers...what did? Go ahead...answer the question, (incivility removed). I know you won't.

There was zero concrete in the structural frames above ground level, and the thickness of the steel is irrelevant. As Rolls Royce said about horsepower, it was "adequate" to hold the weight of the building as long as it remained intact and once it wasn't intact it was bypassed by the rubble, like water makes it's way down the stream despite all those extremely strong boulders in it's way.

ROFL

Here are some statistics that I gave you before:

Various sites give slightly different results but the following figures seem to be generally accepted.

Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg).
Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters.

Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters
Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons

Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square
The "bathtub" - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

Anyone can compute the volume of the basements and compare it to the 425,000 cubic yards. How much of the basements was empty space since there was plenty of room for machinery and people.

So where are you saying all of that concrete went? Do the calculations yourself.

psik

So if airliners and their fuel didn't destroy the towers...what did? Go ahead...answer the question, you pussy. I know you won't.

Then why did you ask? Confusing your ego with your intellect?

Read some Sherlock Holmes.


when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

If our engineering schools can't make the top 15% of a self supporting structure destroy the rest in a gravitational collapse then it certainly makes whatever happened to the north tower is extremely INTERESTING.

But then our engineering schools do not even talk about trying. FOR TEN YEARS!

psik

and you wonder why truthers like yourself are the laughing stock of the scientific community. I've been listening to your bleeting about the mass of the concrete and steel for almost four years. In that time, I have seen countless people try to explain to you (incivility removed) how to actually calculate it for yourself.....but you don't want to hear it. Your (incivility removed) mind only sees this as an excuse for "inside job". Stop (incivility removed) and do the calculations yourself.

BTW, the concrete went everywhere. Just watch the video. See that huge cloud?

Sorry to but in here but are you modeling the collapse of a building with a stack of washers and paper?

BuuuuuSTED!

By god, he got DATA, what the hell do you people want? I was laughing my ass off when the video suddenly transitioned to the guy in his garage with washers on a dowel. I've seen people pay millions just for a simulator to train pilots on how to fly those beasts. But hell, from now on I'm going to help them save money with my 9 99 99 Structural Simulator with a year's supply of destructible components! I'm sure I can find a free plug-in that will convert it to aeronautic use. Act now a get a free fender washer and toilet roll tube stress-load collapse calibration kit!Only 9 99 99! 9 99 99!



http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=T_b6ryZpJQs

psikeyhackr

You keep going on about scale models, but gravity does not scale and as you get smaller gravity has less influence, the steel you use becomes transparent and you still must put your model in a centrifuge to accurately model such a large structure on a small enough scale to be affordable. Ultra thin Angel hair pasta would be one material that would mimic a steel column, but even that would be vastly stronger than the real columns. You can easily hold a strand of Angel hair horizontal by the tip, if you had a full sized beam and picked it up by the tip you couldn't raise it off the ground, it would fall apart at the joints, the perimeter frame would have to be made of aluminum foil or thin paper, but then you could lift the whole outer wall, while if Godzilla tried to do the same with the perimeter frame of WTC, pieces would come off in his fingers. The floor diaphragms could be made by a particularly small, anemic spider, but even that would be proportionally many times stronger than the floor trusses were.

Or you could do what NIST did, build full size sections of the building's components and test them, do analysis on the steel's reactions to heat, etc. and plug the results into a finite element computer program, compare your results with reality, adjust and run again... Eventually they came up with simulations that conformed with what was observed, what occurred and what was found in the rubble and that is the best analysis of the events we are ever going to get.

Grumpy:cool:

http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

When you view this pdf pay particular attention to fig.2 and fig.3B as they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I have said about the truss floors is absolutely correct. The whole paper is well worth reading, it makes psi's drivel look as foolish as it actually is.

Grumpy:cool:

That is funny. Search it for the word CORE. It is used a total of eight times and mostly they just talk about the truss connections to the core.

They can't explain the collapse of the core so they ignore it and say "likely this" and "likely that". I am impressed.

Just another article IMPLYING the core was unimportant by not talking about it.

psik

That is funny. Search it for the word CORE. It is used a total of eight times and mostly they just talk about the truss connections to the core.

They can't explain the collapse of the core so they ignore it and say "likely this" and "likely that". I am impressed.

Just another article IMPLYING the core was unimportant by not talking about it.

psik

LOL...(incivility removed). Most of the core was left behind in the collapse.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/WTCdemolitions/WTC1_ABC_MChrleswrthALTZOOMNISTDub3_46.jpg

psikeyhackr

You keep going on about scale models, but gravity does not scale and as you get smaller gravity has less influence, the steel you use becomes transparent and you still must put your model in a centrifuge to accurately model such a large structure on a small enough scale to be affordable.

I never said anything about SCALE.

My model is not to scale. The washers are sorted so the heaviest are toward the bottom but I have no idea how well it conforms to the distribution of the original towers. But since we don't have that data on the buildings no one can make a model that matches it.

Since my paper loops are deliberately as weak as possible using a centrifuge to increase the effective gravity would mean the loops would have to be stronger to handle the greater static load. So the dynamic load increases but it would have to crush stronger supports. So it cancels.

But I did TWO DROPS and my model still did not come close to complete collapse.

psik

LOL...keep showing how retarded you are. Most of the core was left behind in the collapse.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/WTCdemolitions/WTC1_ABC_MChrleswrthALTZOOMNISTDub3_46.jpg

You call that MOST? Can you count? The core had 47 columns. :D

Talk about retarded.

psik

But I did TWO DROPS and my model still did not come close to complete collapse.


Anyone following this thread would know why. Do you?

So...if the core had anything to do with the collapse...why was it still standing after the collapse?

If our engineering schools can't make the top 15% of a self supporting structure destroy the rest in a gravitational collapse then it certainly makes whatever happened to the north tower is extremely INTERESTING.
But then our engineering schools do not even talk about trying. FOR TEN YEARS! psik

I'm sure after they saw you bring NASA to their knees WITH PAPER AND WASHERS ON A DOWEL they figured out what time it is.

You know, I think you may have just stumbled on the $3.29 solution to discouraging ALL FRIVOLOUS UNIVERSITY PROJECTS. If you weren't so scared of the government, I'd recommend you run for Congress on the Republican ticket. You could easily get that 66% education funding cut Ryan is asking for, just by scaring the bajeezuz out of all the grant proposal writers.

Hey - wait: paper, rock, scissors . . . oh, I got it: paper wraps rock, therefore you got the concrete covered.

I guess I should say something halfway serious even though this thread is way out in the weeds. You've actually had some very good feedback. You just don't have a clue what any of the technical stuff entails, so it's impossible to speak your language, since it lacks the lexicon of actual science.

I can recommend some good material that would help you catch up with those pathetic engineering schools so you could, you know, rub their noses in dog poop and all that. A couple of topics come to mind. One is any basic text on statics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statics). Then one on concrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_concrete). Next I would recommend one on fatigue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_fatigue). Then throw in some Finite Element Analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method).

After that, go get a BS in Civil Engineering, and go ahead and do your MS with your thesis on the WTC collapse, and you'll need a concurrent software curriculum because your going to be doing giga-matrix determinants out the wahzoo, and then you should be all set for your PhD. By then the rest of us here will be catching up with how to calibrate the little paper bands to ensure that each one gives at least a second order approximation to a million element network. I've already got a calibration technique in mind that uses fender washers and toilet roll spools.

Then life will be good, we can order each other a beer online, and write kickass posts against the government. And - what's his name? - oh yeah: Michael Moore - that's who we need - yeah Michael Moore will want to come do this up proper and then you'll get the YouTube audience you really want - the ones who will throw flowers at you and give you the ticker tape parade and have you put your feet in wet cement - get it? cement.. - down at Grauman's Chinese Theatre next to Groucho and Kobe Bryant and then fella life will be good.

That's what I'm talkin about.

You call that MOST? Can you count? The core had 47 columns. :D

Talk about retarded.

psik

You couldn't find (incivility removed)....much less the total mass of the towers. Why don't you just give up, and start a new hobby...like growing flowers or something?

But I did TWO DROPS and my model still did not come close to complete collapse.
Anyone following this thread would know why. Do you?

<waves arm frenetically: teacher! teacher!> Because paper cuts scissors? Sorry. (Oops.) Because it's just a silly toy, not a model?

It has no relation to the physics of a WTC tower being hit by a jetliner. And your hint about the pulverization of concrete involves fatigue of material that's utterly off scale. Little paper strips have elasticity. The just fold up instead of shattering.

psikeyhackr

Originally Posted by Grumpy
http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

When you view this pdf pay particular attention to fig.2 and fig.3B as they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I have said about the truss floors is absolutely correct. The whole paper is well worth reading, it makes psi's drivel look as foolish as it actually is.


Grumpy
That is funny. Search it for the word CORE. It is used a total of eight times and mostly they just talk about the truss connections to the core.

Well, DUH! The name of the paper is "Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of
the World Trade Center Towers", that should have given you a hint that it had nothing to do with the core collapse. Are you so...misinformed that you think searching a three page document is the same as getting valid information out of it. It was a paper about what was found to be the failure mode of the connections between the trusses and the frame by actual scientists, examining firsthand the steel of WTC to determine how those elements of the WTC building failed and why they provided not one bit of resistance to the vertical avalanche. The fig.2 is a clear view of a sixty foot truss showing that it was constructed exactly as I have shown on this thread, Fig. 3B shows the angle iron clearly and a partially constructed floor with the truss clearly sitting on it's own set of angle irons and the relatively wimpy structure the floors were in relation to those frame members(but they could hold them up if they fell, right?). It also confirms that each individual floor was attached only to the frame and carried no load, structurally, and that each floor had it's own separate connections to the vertical wall of the frame by those wimpy angle irons. The paper determined that 96% failed being either bent down or ripped off that frame and that broken links in the chain will not transmit power, resistance or forces and that's why the thickness of the steel of those frame members is irrelevant. The core then fell over, as it could not stand except in a vertical direction. 7% off of vertical and the steel breaks at the joints.


They can't explain the collapse of the core so they ignore it and say "likely this" and "likely that". I am impressed.

Like ignoring Mount Rushmore in a paper about the Grand Canyon? Well, their both monuments, right? Impressively...profoundly...stupendously...unimpre ssive of you.


Just another article IMPLYING the core was unimportant by not talking about it.

:facepalm:

Grumpy:cool:

All right, here is the closest I could think of to a model that MIGHT tell us something.

You will need several boxes of the thinnest Angel hair pasta you can find. Since the past comes in ~10 inch lengths our model will be 40 inches tall, or a scale of 33 ft per inch and our base will be 6.3 inches square. Oh, you will need to build two of them, as you will be testing one to failure(or build one, test to failure and then build another one).

Drill tiny little holes around the perimeter and for each core column. The bottom can be wood, but the top(drilled only halfway through)should be high density foam. you will need three pieces of cardstock for the mechanical floors(with all holes drilled in them)and superglue to "weld" your columns end to end(four pieces each and make them absolutely straight). insert them through the cardstock pieces and into the base, adjust the three "mechanical floors" at each of the joints and go wild gluing the joints to each piece of card stock, then put the top on(you'll probably need a couple of helpers). At this scale the floors are made of smoke, so ignore them.(unless you have a well trained but pathetically small spider who will put in 86 floors

Testing. The first thing we must do is reverse engineer the failure load. Put a paper cup on the top and fill it full of sand, lead shot, etc. slowly and, once disaster happens use half that(the WTC was designed with a safety factor of ~2)for the test load for the next phase.

Take a pair of nippers and cut the outside frame pasta in the pattern of the aircraft impact damage on the building you are studying, do the same for the known core beams that were damaged as well(hey, nobody said science is easy, try a pair of those hair cutting scissors with the tapered points). Use a small sprayer to wet the beams in the known areas of fire, repeatedly over time(the buildings burned for one and two hours, be patient), you might want to put a thin coat of varnish(NOT WATER BASED) on those areas known not to have been affected by fire. Pasta is affected by water a lot like steel is affected by fire, the wetter(hotter)it gets the softer it becomes, and it fails by snapping if dry(cool), bending and creeping if wet(hot). Your model will collapse into a pile of spaghetti(it's been done, but not by me).

Now that's how you do a model of the WTC events, based on how the Towers were really built. Hey, it might even come in under my budget of $3.29!

Grumpy:thankyou:

All right, here is the closest I could think of to a model that MIGHT tell us something.

You will need several boxes of the thinnest Angel hair pasta you can find. Since the past comes in ~10 inch lengths our model will be 40 inches tall, or a scale of 33 ft per inch and our base will be 6.3 inches square. Oh, you will need to build two of them, as you will be testing one to failure(or build one, test to failure and then build another one).

I did not even bother reading all of that.

I did two searches. I searched on WEIGHT. I searched on MASS.

You don't mention that.

You are talking about making a model that LOOKS somewhat like the WTC. But a gravitational collapse means moving mass impacting supports strong enough to hold the weight of that mass under static conditions.

I NEVER said anything about my model being to any SCALE. You brought that up. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION. So if you are not talking about the weight of the components in that model then what does it have to do with the physics relating to solving this problem?

My washers average 1.7 oz. the top one should be about 1.4 and the bottom one 2.1 oz. It takes about 0.118 joules to flatten a single paper loop. The damage done to the loops corresponds quite well to the potential energy of the falling mass over the empty space through which it falls.

Maybe you should give up on thinking. Or trying to.

psik

I did not even bother reading all of that.

/thread closed

I mean, really...

/thread closed

I mean, really...

In two separate posts now, psikeyhackr has admitted that he just keyword searches documents rather than reading them. I mean, that settles it.

/thread closed

I mean, really...

So you explain how you have a relevant gravitational collapse model without dealing with mass or weight.

psik

I NEVER said anything about my model being to any SCALE. You brought that up. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION. So if you are not talking about the weight of the components in that model then what does it have to do with the physics relating to solving this problem?

Because the behaviour of the materials dictates the reaction of the stack?

As an actual lizardoid, I can tell you your model isn't accurate. We tried all that stuff. Only carbon-based orbital lasers were effective.

psikeyhackr


I did not even bother reading all of that.

I did two searches. I searched on WEIGHT. I searched on MASS.

You don't mention that.

I note you really don't seem to read anything if it doesn't agree with you. I didn't use the words weight or mass, but reverse engineering the failure load deals with those very things. I wrote...


Testing. The first thing we must do is reverse engineer the failure load(also called weight). Put a paper cup on the top and fill it full of sand, lead shot, etc. slowly and, once disaster happens use half that(the WTC was designed with a safety factor of ~2)for the test load for the next phase.

Seems I must explain why I did it that way for some of the slower posters.

The failure load will be twice the design load. Since we cannot scale gravity, we must scale the failure load for our simulation. Putting WEIGHT on the top of the structure to the point of failure and cutting that weight in half is an accurate simulation of the relationship between the design load of WTC and it's failure load, bypassing any inaccuracies in scale, materials and the effects of gravity. The ratio between design and failure loads is thus accurately modeled.


You are talking about making a model that LOOKS somewhat like the WTC.

Not only does my model look more like WTC, the materials I use ACT like the materials used in WTC(unlike paper and steel washers). Spaghetti has been used to model the behavior of steel beams since...well...forever. It snaps like steel, it softens like steel and it creeps like steel. The only thing it cannot model for steel beams is the effects of scale, even the thinnest spaghetti is many times stronger than the full size steel it models. That's why you must reverse engineer your failure load, because the safety factor DOES scale.


But a gravitational collapse means moving mass impacting supports strong enough to hold the weight of that mass under static conditions.

But support designed to hold a certain mass will never hold that same mass if it is moving. It's load is doubled and quadrupled after just a small drop, in WTC it was 12 feet, one floor, before the energy of the falling mass exceeded any possible ability for the supports to stop it, even if they were still attached. Double the speed=4 times the kinetic energy. And at 32 ft/sec/sec it took only one second of falling to go 16 feet, the building fell because one floor's steel failed, dropping the top block.


I NEVER said anything about my model being to any SCALE. You brought that up. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION

No, it is a pathetic attempt to show just how clueless you are about simulating a real event in your garage. It has nothing to do with the collapse of WTC, though it successfully demonstrated how little you know about physics.


My washers average 1.7 oz. the top one should be about 1.4 and the bottom one 2.1 oz. It takes about 0.118 joules to flatten a single paper loop. The damage done to the loops corresponds quite well to the potential energy of the falling mass over the empty space through which it falls.

Maybe you should give up on thinking. Or trying to.

MASS DOES NOT SCALE(because gravity does not scale). Why do you think an ant can pick up many times it's own mass while we struggle to pick up just one body mass object?And you know as little about thinking as you have demonstrated about any other subject, evidently. Boy I wish you had been one of my physics students. I would either disabuse you of your opinion of your own understanding or I would make sure you failed that course and never entered my classroom again. You ought to at least try to think, just once. You might find that people won't think you're quite as slow as they do now.

Question for the thread, who's simulation do you think more accurately models the events of WTC and why?

Grumpy

I note you really don't seem to read anything if it doesn't agree with you. I didn't use the words weight or mass, but reverse engineering the failure load deals with those very things. I wrote...

I confess it did not occur to me to search on LOAD. But you did not use that word in that post either.

But until you build it and test it and it can completely collapse then what is the point?

psik

psikeyhackr


I confess it did not occur to me to search on LOAD. But you did not use that word in that post either.

Did it not occur to you to actually READ the three page paper? Or my complete post?I did use the concept, but there are several words that can be used to convey that concept. If all you do is search for words you will miss the information you need to alleviate your ignorance and misunderstanding. The point being if you know the weight, load, mass that it takes to make the structure fail, you know that half that weight,load or mass is analogous to the load the WTC was designed for and that your simulation, despite the problems of scaling, will be able to tell you something relevant to how it would react. The same goes for your choice of materials and construction. Washers and paper tell you only how paper and washers will behave and nothing about buildings of any sort.


But until you build it and test it and it can completely collapse then what is the point?

A couple of college kids did it years ago, it used to be on utube. The model collapsed in a similar fashion to the real thing. Troothers were upset. But like Birthers, Creationists and other faith based magical thinkers, it changed none of their minds. They are convinced that something besides physics was needed to explain the collapses. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

Grumpy:cool:

A couple of college kids did it years ago, it used to be on utube. The model collapsed in a similar fashion to the real thing. Troothers were upset. But like Birthers, Creationists and other faith based magical thinkers, it changed none of their minds. They are convinced that something besides physics was needed to explain the collapses. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

Grumpy:cool:

Ever notice that people CLAIM things all the time but for some reason cannot provide supporting evidence and then expect to be believed?

I built a model, made the video and provided enough information for anyone to duplicate it.

You can expect me to believe that story about the college kids all you want. I have looked for models which did that for years. I have not seen one.

I used paper because it was the weakest support I could find relative to the weight. My washers are less than 4 pounds. I even tried tissue paper. Since I do not believe the collapse is possible I will not only have to see it I will have to duplicate it. I could have put wooden donuts inside my paper loops and how would anyone watching the video know?

psik

Do you think they lined the towers with explosives before or after the planes hit?

Where are eyewitnesses to all this 'stuff' that was moved into the building? Are all the occupants of the WTC in on the secrecy?

You're so big on numbers...how much C4 (or whatever) would be needed per level to bring down a tower? In demolition they basically weaken the structure so that (drumroll) gravity brings down the building in a certain way. There's NO difference between weakening the structure from the bottom or top. And it's been shown that steel weakens in low temperature fires. Doesn't matter if the bottom goes first, or a top level begins to fall down and hits the rest.

The obviously came down. Or maybe you think even the average NYer there that day is also in on the biggest photoshop in history?

I don't get the reluctance to understand that a building can come down, and once started, gravity was going to win.

psikeyhackr


I built a model, made the video and provided enough information for anyone to duplicate it.

Yeah, I saw your video. The physics are crap, the logic as well. You need to get away from the "concrete core" crowd as what they claim is garbage.


You can expect me to believe that story about the college kids all you want. I have looked for models which did that for years. I have not seen one.

First, I don't give a rat's patooty what you believe. I've just given you a more accurate model, and a more realistic methodology, go do it yourself. It's in the same price range and actually has something to do with the physics of 911(unlike your pathetic attempt to prove...?).


Since I do not believe the collapse is possible

There's your problem right there. Creationists do not believe evolution is real, but it is, Birthers don't believe the President was born in America, but he was. Belief is often not a path to reality. And the reality is that religious fanatics attacked the Twin Towers with 250,000 lb manned cruise missiles full of people and fuel at 500 mph and even though the towers survived the impacts, the multi-floor, fuel fed fires caused the steel to lose it's strength(500F=loss of 50%, 850F=75%, 1000F=oops, taffy)in several areas and fail, the failure dropped the top masses through at least one floor and at that point in time nothing short of the pyramids would have stopped that motion(the building would have still come apart). Believe anything you like, but those are the facts, nothing else is needed to explain the events of that day. And those event DID take place, I watched horrified as the live shots came in. Those planes did impact those buildings(I saw the second one live, the first one on tape), those fires did burn, steel does get weaker with heat, those buildings were designed with only twice as much strength as it needed to stand undisturbed, the impacts did disturb the buildings structure, the fires did cause the steel to fail and physics ruled as physics always rule.

Grumpy:cool:

Yeah, I saw your video. The physics are crap, the logic as well. You need to get away from the "concrete core" crowd as what they claim is garbage.

Talk is SO CHEAP!

I have not seen you or anyone else build a self supporting model that can come close to being completely collapsed by the drop of the top 15% or less onto the rest. This emphasis on the trusses and pretense that the core is unimportant is just a BIG LIE as far as I am concerned. Even the NIST admits the core supported 53% of the building's weight.

It is actually hilarious that there is a pretense that the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings are unimportant. You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without that data.

ROFLMAO

The NIST admitted in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight of the building in order to analyse its motion as a result of the aircraft impact. They never specify the location of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. So your accusation that the physics of my model is bad is nothing but idiotic drivel to me.

Most of the NIST report is nothing but a snow job with enough science to impress the ignorant but not enough to be an accurate analysis. The airliner only deflected the south tower 15 inches on impact but we are supposed to believe that 50 minutes later the top 29 stories could completely break loose and tilt 22 degrees in a couple of seconds as a result of fire.

The physics profession has made a fool of itself by not being extremely interested in this event.

The Irony of Curiosity regarding the 9/11 Affair. Galileo must love it. :D

psik

The obviously came down. Or maybe you think even the average NYer there that day is also in on the biggest photoshop in history?

I don't get the reluctance to understand that a building can come down, and once started, gravity was going to win.

It is not my problem if you don't get Newtonian Physics. Gravity does not eliminate the conservation of momentum or the fact that static supports require energy to be destroyed from above. Whether they are steel or paper makes no difference.

If the top of the north tower could fall and destroy everything below then it should not be difficult to build a physical model that could do the same thing and there would certainly be no reason for accurate data on the steel and concrete distributions to not be readily available.

Curiously it seems that information cannot be had on any skyscraper anywhere in the world.

psik

psikeyhackr


This emphasis on the trusses and pretense that the core is unimportant is just a BIG LIE as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, Creationists think Natural Selection is a big lie, too. Birthers think the President's Birth Certificate is a big lie as well. Your ignorance about the design and construction details and what they mean to the question of the collapses has been plainly shown on this thread. Dude, it happened twice, on the same day! Just how many times does it take before you suddenly realize "Hey, buildings CAN collapse if you hit them with a huge airplane full of fuel."?


Even the NIST admits the core supported 53% of the building's weight.

And the rope hanging the old tire to the limb of the tree supports 100% of that weight...until it breaks. A broken core supports nothing, neither does a broken connection for the floor, and the outer frame is on video in the act of breaking. As-designed strength is irrelevant once the design is broken. Or do you think the tire should just hang there because the rest of the rope is as strong as ever?


The NIST admitted in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight of the building in order to analyse its motion as a result of the aircraft impact.

Well, you would need it in that case, but once it is broken it's remaining strength has ended, it is no longer relevant.


They never specify the location of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

That is just a lie, it's in the report(as if you would know, having only keyword searched it). The center of mass stayed centered over the footprint until the collapse was well underway.


So your accusation that the physics of my model is bad is nothing but idiotic drivel to me.

Well, you do have a lot of experience with idiotic drivel, being a Troother and all. But as a retired Physics teacher, your model sure qualifies.


Most of the NIST report is nothing but a snow job with enough science to impress the ignorant but not enough to be an accurate analysis.

You determined this with keyword search, did you? You obviously haven't read it.

Hmmm, the National Institute of Science and Technology and it's thirty something pounds of scientific reports or some ignorant dweeb on the internet and his tissues and washers, boy that's a hard choice. Like Charles Darwin's Finches or Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck. Or the State of Hawaii vs. Donald Trump and Oily Taints.:scratchin:

You lose.


The physics profession has made a fool of itself by not being extremely interested in this event.

The only one here who has made a fool of themselves is you. You've done a bang up job with that.

Grumpy:cool:

Yeah, Creationists think Natural Selection is a big lie, too. Birthers think the President's Birth Certificate is a big lie as well. Your ignorance about the design and construction details and what they mean to the question of the collapses has been plainly shown on this thread. Dude, it happened twice, on the same day! Just how many times does it take before you suddenly realize "Hey, buildings CAN collapse if you hit them with a huge airplane full of fuel."?

So you can create an analogy with birthers and creationists. I am impressed. But Newtonian Physics can be tested with experiments. 100,000,000 years of evolution cannot. More of you sophistry crap.

What does the word FULL mean? Maybe you need to look it up. Tanker planes can be FULL of fuel. Not passenger planes. And the planes had 10,000 gallons which was 34 tons. If it was FULLY FUELED it would have had 24,000 gallons so it was only about 40% full. How many tons of steel were in the core within five stories of the impact. Steel conducts heat. So how does it get hot enough to weaken in less than two hours? Oh yeah, we don't need that data it might be too scientific.

Even the NIST admits that about half of the fuel was used up in the initial fire ball and it is obvious from the south tower video that most of that exploded outside of the building. But what damage did that fireball explosion do to the outside of the building? Except for some broken windows it does not look like it did anything.

It is also curious that THREE building went down on 9/11 even though there were lots of skyscraper fires before and since 9/11. And one of those three building was not hit by a plane.

And that impact against the south tower moved the building a whole FIFTEEN INCHES. WOW!


The only one here who has made a fool of themselves is you. You've done a bang up job with that.

I won't be holding my breath until you or any physicists makes a model that can completely collapse. Have fun with your pasta. Have you figured out the maximum static load it can handle yet?

psik

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23865366.jpg

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23865366.jpg

Why is there not a "Thanks" button on this freaking forum?!

Psikey posted another one of his physics demostrations....check it out! :

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/8/31/nxzywyQ-MkuNKdt7qmPkXg2.gif

psikeyhackr


So you can create an analogy with birthers and creationists. I am impressed. But Newtonian Physics can be tested with experiments. 100,000,000 years of evolution cannot. More of you sophistry crap.

You're wrong about almost everything you post. There is no "Newtonian Physics", Einstein replaced Newton almost 100 years ago by showing that Newton was only an approximate solution for certain conditions. And evolution is and has been tested for over 150 years. Like Birthers and Creationists, Troothers believe what they believe DESPITE reality, not because of it.


What does the word FULL mean? Maybe you need to look it up. Tanker planes can be FULL of fuel. Not passenger planes. And the planes had 10,000 gallons which was 34 tons. If it was FULLY FUELED it would have had 24,000 gallons so it was only about 40% full. How many tons of steel were in the core within five stories of the impact. Steel conducts heat. So how does it get hot enough to weaken in less than two hours? Oh yeah, we don't need that data it might be too scientific.

Throw 5000 gallons of JetA in an office building(coincidently setting all the paper, carpet, desks and other fuels on fire as well)and you will find out(again, we already know). The fires were multi floor and spread to a significant portion of the acre sized area of all of them. Steel in the middle could not possibly radiate or conduct that heat fast enough, and it only takes enough steel on one level to initiate collapse. Add in the steel that had no fire protection due to impact damage and the steel will get hot enough to lose strength, leading to collapse. It happened twice on the same day.


And one of those three building was not hit by a plane.

Yeah, it only got struck by debris when a 110 story building collapsed right next to it, starting fires that burned for hours, unfought as the firefighters were "pulled" from it's vicinity because the firecheif thought the building was going to collapse(transits measured a significant tilt hours before it collapsed).


And that impact against the south tower moved the building a whole FIFTEEN INCHES. WOW!

Were you always this...slow? How do those short buses ride, the short wheelbase would tend to give a choppy ride.

Moving a multi-million ton building "only" 15 inches is, as Joe Biden so succinctly put it, "A Big F---ing Deal". It represents a huge amount of energy, energy dissipated by breaking columns and frame members.

Grumpy:cool:

I agree 9/11 was an inside job. Al Quida was inside the USA.

Tanker planes can be FULL of fuel. Not passenger planes.

Wow, you are really out of arguments, aren't you? You've reached the stage where you are arguing over the definition of words, which is a sure sign that you have nothing left.

Perhaps you could claim that the common meaning of "collapse" is wrong.

billvon


Wow, you are really out of arguments, aren't you? You've reached the stage where you are arguing over the definition of words, which is a sure sign that you have nothing left.

psikeyhackr never had any arguments in the first place, outside of his "I don't understand it, so it can't be true." attitude. He probably needs to go back to breakfornews (http://breakfornews.com/) with killtown and fintan, they think he's a genius(which, compared to christophera with his idiotic concrete core claims, he is). As long as he is playing in that children's sandbox he gets plenty of ego stroking for his delusions, it's just when he interrupts the adult's conversation at a real science forum that he is called out on his idiotic non-sense.

I went through there with a machete a few years ago, they couldn't stand the heat so they banned me. No dissonance is allowed in their echo chamber. They actually think that explosives for demo being built in to the building, that it wasn't planes that hit the towers or that huge lasers from space(among other frankly sub-human logic)are valid concepts and discuss them "seriously". It's a runaway feedback loop situation, nothing is too nutball that they won't believe it. psikeyhackr has actually been throttling back a great deal on this forum so we won't just go straight for the restraints and the padded room solution.

I don't recommend their site for other than anthropological studies on just how stupid a crowd of stupid people can be, you already have Fox News, what more do you need? But there are some resources there about WTC if you can stand sorting the wheat from all that chaff, just look at the pretty pictures, don't believe a single word they say about them.

Grumpy:cool:

You're wrong about almost everything you post. There is no "Newtonian Physics", Einstein replaced Newton almost 100 years ago by showing that Newton was only an approximate solution for certain conditions. And evolution is and has been tested for over 150 years. Like Birthers and Creationists, Troothers believe what they believe DESPITE reality, not because of it.

ROFL

Yeah, at less than 1% of light speed the difference between Einsteinian and Newtonian calculations are SO GREAT! It completely changes the design of skyscrapers.

SciForum to the rescue: :D

Einstein did not disprove Newton. The Newtonian equations are still embodied in Relativity as the special case of low velocity/low mass. All Einstein done was model the case of where Newton is not applicable.

So why is Newton still taught. The problem is that it takes 4-5 of maths/physics background to fully understand Einsteins theory. The Maths is expressed in Tensors, a more general case fo vectors and matrices. Also, how can you understand WHAT gravity is without first fully understanding Newtons gravity and kinematics alongside electromagnetics.
http://www.sciforums.com/Newton-vs-Einstein-t-6684.html


Yeah, it only got struck by debris when a 110 story building collapsed right next to it,

300 feet away is RIGHT NEXT TO IT. Oh yeah, you are using Einsteinian Physics. Things get shorter near light speed. :D

psik

Wow, you are really out of arguments, aren't you? You've reached the stage where you are arguing over the definition of words, which is a sure sign that you have nothing left.

Perhaps you could claim that the common meaning of "collapse" is wrong.

Actually that is a relevant point. A "collapse" where the supports are crushed from above would be quite different from a "collapse" where the supports are destroyed by something else below. The "collapse" times should be very different.

But then people don't even want accurate data on the distribution of steel below that did the supporting so that makes it difficult to make the comparison after the fact. Can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy. Curious that!

So scientific!

psik

Actually that is a relevant point. A "collapse" where the supports are crushed from above would be quite different from a "collapse" where the supports are destroyed by something else below.

There ya go. When logic fails, obfuscation remains.


But then people don't even want accurate data on the distribution of steel below that did the supporting so that makes it difficult to make the comparison after the fact. Can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy. Curious that!

And some people can't even be bothered to read the data available. And oddly enough they claim that others are poorly informed.

psikeyhackr


The Newtonian equations are still embodied in Relativity as the special case of low velocity/low mass

That is simply wrong, Newtonian Physics was only an approximation of reality, there is only one physics and Newton is NOT included.


Actually that is a relevant point. A "collapse" where the supports are crushed from above would be quite different from a "collapse" where the supports are destroyed by something else below. The "collapse" times should be very different.

Neither is what happened on 911. For the most part the outer frames were not crushed, they fell over in long strips when their support was removed. The same goes for about half of the columns in the core. The point about the floors is that when they failed after the initiation they removed any ability of the core or perimeter frame to apply their strength and generate any resistance at all. Large sections of both the core and perimeter frame stood after the rest of the rubble had hit the ground, but soon fell because they could not stand on their own.


300 feet away is RIGHT NEXT TO IT. Oh yeah, you are using Einsteinian Physics. Things get shorter near light speed.

It was a 1300 ft tall building, you know.
http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/9-11-world-trade-center/overview-of-world-trade-center.jpg

That's WTC 7 on the left.
https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/wtc9.jpg

That's WTC 7 being hit by debris.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg/220px-Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg

That's about the best photo in existence of the damage. That's a mean gash.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wtc7_collapse_progression.png/800px-Wtc7_collapse_progression.png

Here's the best assessment of the WTC damage.

http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg

A closer view taken by a firefighter.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA&feature=player_detailpage

Raw news footage from BEHIND WTC 7 before it collapsed. If that kind of destruction was behind 7, how could the building itself NOT be hit?

Grumpy

That is simply wrong, Newtonian Physics was only an approximation of reality, there is only one physics and Newton is NOT included.

LOL

Here is a graph of the tau factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

At 10% of light speed the deviation is trivial. At less than 1% who cares. Like civil engineers are going to do the unnecessary calculations for the sake of Einsteinian physics when the difference is certainly smaller than their normal error margins.

psik

It was a 1300 ft tall building, you know.

And consequently it would take 9 seconds for a mass to fall from the top. So that is how much time a mass had to cover the 300 feet to WTC 7. So the minimum horizontal velocity for such a mass was 23 mph. So what could give a mass heavy enough to do significant damage sufficient horizontal velocity to eventually bring down a 47 story building?

Your diagram shows 17 columns across the 300 foot face. So how did fire and debris damage make 17 columns give way simultaneously so the roof line could stay so straight as it fell?

psik

psikeyhackr


And consequently it would take 9 seconds for a mass to fall from the top. So that is how much time a mass had to cover the 300 feet to WTC 7. So the minimum horizontal velocity for such a mass was 23 mph. So what could give a mass heavy enough to do significant damage sufficient horizontal velocity to eventually bring down a 47 story building?

Your diagram shows 17 columns across the 300 foot face. So how did fire and debris damage make 17 columns give way simultaneously so the roof line could stay so straight as it fell?

Wait, weren't you trying to argue the center of mass in Tower 2 should have moved sideways over 100 feet in under one second?(IE toppled off to the side). Building 7 did not fall down all at once, it fell apart and only the final collapse was seen in the videos.

Building 7 likely had a catastrophic failure of only one column(79). This triggered a progressive failure of the rest of the building. Here is a Structure Magazine article that explains the whole thing(well, to those that actually read such things instead of word search them)...

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Grumpy:cool:

Wait, weren't you trying to argue the center of mass in Tower 2 should have moved sideways over 100 feet in under one second?(IE toppled off to the side). Building 7 did not fall down all at once, it fell apart and only the final collapse was seen in the videos.

Let's see you provide a link to where I said what the center of mass SHOULD HAVE DONE.

As I recall I simply pointed out that we did not know where it was and that our EXPERTS have not been discussing it. But if it did move that far then it should not have gotten support from the core any longer. If the EXPERTS don't tell us where it is then we can't know. But how can honest experts not bring up the subject in TEN YEARS?

So apparently your concept of debate is putting words in other people's mouths and than saying they are wrong.

The videos of the WTC7 collapse may only show the exterior but it was still 300 feet wide across the back and that roofline did stay remarkably horizontal throughot the visible fall. So how could fire or debris from WTC1 make for such simultaneous elimination of support across that length?

psik

psikeyhackr


Let's see you provide a link to where I said what the center of mass SHOULD HAVE DONE.

As I recall I simply pointed out that we did not know where it was and that our EXPERTS have not been discussing it.

It's a non-issue. It's like asking what color the sky is. The center of gravity of the top mass will not move anywhere without some force to move it. No such force existed. Therefore the center of gravity remained exactly where it started until the top block dissolved into rubble. When the top of the block tilted one way, the bottom of the block shifted sideways in the opposite direction, shearing the connections between it and the rest of the building, turning into rubble in the process. The center of gravity dropped straight down. The experts don't discuss this because it is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject. The experts rarely discuss the fact that water is wet, for the same reason. It's just plain physics(elementary physics at that).

http://www.debunking911.com/sim1.gifhttp://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg


The videos of the WTC7 collapse may only show the exterior but it was still 300 feet wide across the back and that roofline did stay remarkably horizontal throughot the visible fall. So how could fire or debris from WTC1 make for such simultaneous elimination of support across that length?

You didn't bother to read my cite. The building collapsed in several stages, the last stage(the fall of the wall)was triggered when the debris from the first stages knocked it sideways at the bottom. That's the same thing demo guys do to a building, they use explosives instead of hundreds of thousands of pounds of rubble, but the results look similar. The rear wall was draped in large pieces across the top of rest of the building, it had to have fallen last.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_pile.jpg

Grumpy

Hi Grumpy-

While I understand and sympathize with the urge to debunk this Truther nonsense, the fact of the matter is that engaging with psikeyhackr only encourages him. This is because it implies that his views merit debunking in the first place. In fact, he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the engineering or dynamical physics involved, so what he does or does not think about those subjects is of no interest to anybody. There is nothing you could ever say that will convince him he is wrong - and he is depending on your willingness to imply that his ideas even merit disproving in the first place to feed his persona.

I suggest you ignore him, ideally, or if not stick to sneering dismissiveness and condescension. Most definitely do you get into detailed technical arguments - that just implies that he is a serious, scientific person that has only a technical disagreement with the mainstream theories. This is not the case - he is unserious and anti-scientific, and the nature of his dispute with reality is a personal question of ego and self-image which is not fixable through scientific discussion of skyscraper dynamics. By enabling him to engage in this way, you are effectively entrenching the whole persona in question.

Thanks for your consideration.

Let's see you provide a link to where I said what the center of mass SHOULD HAVE DONE.

As I recall I simply pointed out that we did not know where it was and that our EXPERTS have not been discussing it. But if it did move that far then it should not have gotten support from the core any longer. If the EXPERTS don't tell us where it is then we can't know. But how can honest experts not bring up the subject in TEN YEARS?

So apparently your concept of debate is putting words in other people's mouths and than saying they are wrong.

The videos of the WTC7 collapse may only show the exterior but it was still 300 feet wide across the back and that roofline did stay remarkably horizontal throughot the visible fall. So how could fire or debris from WTC1 make for such simultaneous elimination of support across that length?

psik

I once heard someone over at JREF give an analogy to try to explain this. I'm not sure if it's totally accurate, but it gets the idea across.

Let's imagine we have a bowling ball...for ease of calculation we will say this bowling ball weighs 100 pounds (that's one hell of a bowling ball!) This bowling ball is suspended by 10 strings. Each string has a breaking strength of 15 pounds. With 10 strings, the 100 pound load is equally distributed between the strings, so that each one supports 10 pounds. Take a pair of scissors and cut one string. The 100 pound load is instantly redistributed among the 9 remaining strings so that each one now supports 11.11 pounds. Well within it's tolerance. Cut another. Now each of the remaining 8 strings support 12.5 pounds. Cut another. Now each of the 7 strings is supporting 14.28 pounds. Really close to it's breaking strength...they are barely holding on.

Now cut one more final string. This will make the 6 remaining strings encounter 16.66 pounds of weight each...well beyond their breaking strength...so the remaining 6 strings will all fail virtually simultaneously and the bowling ball will fall. That's what happened in building 7

Hi Grumpy-

While I understand and sympathize with the urge to debunk this Truther nonsense, the fact of the matter is that engaging with psikeyhackr only encourages him. This is because it implies that his views merit debunking in the first place. In fact, he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the engineering or dynamical physics involved, so what he does or does not think about those subjects is of no interest to anybody. There is nothing you could ever say that will convince him he is wrong - and he is depending on your willingness to imply that his ideas even merit disproving in the first place to feed his persona.



I suggest you ignore him, ideally, or if not stick to sneering dismissiveness and condescension. Most definitely do you get into detailed technical arguments - that just implies that he is a serious, scientific person that has only a technical disagreement with the mainstream theories. This is not the case - he is unserious and anti-scientific, and the nature of his dispute with reality is a personal question of ego and self-image which is not fixable through scientific discussion of skyscraper dynamics. By enabling him to engage in this way, you are effectively entrenching the whole persona in question.

Thanks for your consideration.

I've been discussing 9/11 with psikey for many years now, on several different boards. It's a hopeless cause. It's why I've pretty much stuck to ridicule, rather than waste my time with debunking. I know he can take it, so I don't feel too bad.

I.E:

https://7chan.org/rnb/src/134331543443.jpg

quadraphonics

I, too, have been at this for years. I also know nothing I say will convince him. But I feel a bit of an obligation to the others who will read this thread. I have covered most of the subject here, anyway. The fact remains that religious fundamentalism and hatred plus the ability to commandeer our own aircraft is all the terrorists needed, but some people cannot avoid the urge to form circular firing squads, blaming anyone and anything rather than accept that simple fact. I'm done, the job has been accomplished and the idiocy exposed. Besides, it was fun(up to a point)to take a ball bat and swing away at the whiffle balls coming over the plate. I would ask that this thread be consigned to the dead letter file, if not the round file in the corner.

Psi

Take your lying crap back to breakfornews, I guarantee that you'll find lots of stupid people who'll hang on your every word there.

Grumpy:cool:

It's a non-issue. It's like asking what color the sky is. The center of gravity of the top mass will not move anywhere without some force to move it. No such force existed. Therefore the center of gravity remained exactly where it started until the top block dissolved into rubble. When the top of the block tilted one way, the bottom of the block shifted sideways in the opposite direction, shearing the connections between it and the rest of the building, turning into rubble in the process. The center of gravity dropped straight down. The experts don't discuss this because it is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject. The experts rarely discuss the fact that water is wet, for the same reason. It's just plain physics(elementary physics at that).

ROFLMAO

So what provided the energy to rotate 29 stories and shear close to 300 columns? That is more important than the center of gravity and you just admitted that happened. When the plane impacted, the building only deflected 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes.

So how could FIRE do what YOU just described?

Most official story defenders say the top tilted because fire could do that be weakening one side. But you just admitted it ROTATED. How could fire do that? You are so busy trying to WIN on the center of gravity business you gave up something more important.

psik

Grumpy...do you ever post on JREF forums by another name?

I once heard someone over at JREF give an analogy to try to explain this. I'm not sure if it's totally accurate, but it gets the idea across.

Let's imagine we have a bowling ball...for ease of calculation we will say this bowling ball weighs 100 pounds (that's one hell of a bowling ball!) This bowling ball is suspended by 10 strings. Each string has a breaking strength of 15 pounds. With 10 strings, the 100 pound load is equally distributed between the strings, so that each one supports 10 pounds. Take a pair of scissors and cut one string. The 100 pound load is instantly redistributed among the 9 remaining strings so that each one now supports 11.11 pounds. Well within it's tolerance. Cut another. Now each of the remaining 8 strings support 12.5 pounds. Cut another. Now each of the 7 strings is supporting 14.28 pounds. Really close to it's breaking strength...they are barely holding on.

Now cut one more final string. This will make the 6 remaining strings encounter 16.66 pounds of weight each...well beyond their breaking strength...so the remaining 6 strings will all fail virtually simultaneously and the bowling ball will fall. That's what happened in building 7

The problem with your analogy is that a fire would not BREAK STRINGS in an evenly distributed manner. They would most likely be concentrated where the fire was hotest. That would leave unbroken strings in one area. This would cause the bowling ball to swing to one side.

But the roof line of WTC7 remained perfectly straight except for that slight kink in the middle like a normal controlled demolition. So how could a fire make opposite ends of a building 300 feet apart come down in sync?

The JREFers come up with really crappy physics analogy and claim they are good by not examining them any any detail. Rather like Grumpy.

psik

The problem with your analogy is that a fire would not BREAK STRINGS in an evenly distributed manner. They would most likely be concentrated where the fire was hotest. That would leave unbroken strings in one area. This would cause the bowling ball to swing to one side.

But the roof line of WTC7 remained perfectly straight except for that slight kink in the middle like a normal controlled demolition. So how could a fire make opposite ends of a building 300 feet apart come down in sync?

The JREFers come up with really crappy physics analogy and claim they are good by not examining them any any detail. Rather like Grumpy.



psik

So what your saying is that the "perps" knew ahead of time that that flaming debris from the tower's collapse would impact Building 7, and cause fires...and they would know ahead of time the twin towers collapse would sever the water mains, so that the sprinklers wouldn't work, and they knew ahead of time the FDNY would be so strapped for resources, that they couldn't fight the fire, and they let it burn for almost 8 hours, then they decided to explode the charges in the building that no one heard, so that no one died, and a building no one heard of collapsed. Yeah...that sounds feasable.

MacGyver1968


So what your saying is that the "perps" knew ahead of time that that flaming debris from the tower's collapse would impact Building 7, and cause fires...and they would know ahead of time the twin towers collapse would sever the water mains, so that the sprinklers wouldn't work, and they knew ahead of time the FDNY would be so strapped for resources, that they couldn't fight the fire, and they let it burn for almost 8 hours, then they decided to explode the charges in the building that no one heard, so that no one died, and a building no one heard of collapsed. Yeah...that sounds feasable.

At base what he is saying is "Since I am incapable of understanding the physics, it can't be true." It's an attitude you often encounter in magical thinkers. I could explain the physics I taught for over 30 years, but just like a biology teacher cannot get a Creationist raised child to understand the facts, his mind has already been made up, his conclusions already made before he hears the first word. You can lead a horse's patooty to water...

I used to post at JREF, years ago, but I was still Grumpy then too.

And I went through breakfornews with a machete several years ago, they finally banned me because they couldn't deal with the heat I was bringing. It's a real nuthouse over there, there isn't anything that someone there won't take seriously. Chemtrails and concrete cores and spray on c4, oh my.

Grumpy:cool:

Building 7 likely had a catastrophic failure of only one column. This triggered a progressive failure of the rest of the building.

Are you suggesting building codes allow for the complete collapse of a building if only ONE support column fails?

I disagree that one should not use direct argument against any kind of denier. Granted, if you don't have the time or patience, maybe it's not worth the effort, but even an old subject that has been addressed time and time again should be approached as if it's a new one, simply for the fact that to just blow someone off with insults gives them a lot more credit than if you actually counter their claim, even if for the umpteenth time.

As a tagline I used to see years ago on religious discussion said, remember the lurkers. Someone could google this thread for their first exposure to the topic, and after seeing the presented data from various posters to the claims of demolition, inside job, and just flat "I can't believe it", and the lack of defense of those claims, they'll come away with a lot better picture than if the deniers had been blown off as crazy. Fight lack of knowledge with facts, it's always the best policy.

I for one have learned a few interesting things myself with Grumpy's and others posts, and I'm not even a denier. I watched the events as they unfolded too that day. My wife lost a business client of hers there.

So what your saying is that the "perps" knew ahead of time....

I don't talk about or give a damn about "perps". You keep trying to steer discussion in that direction.


This bowling ball is suspended by 10 strings. Each string has a breaking strength of 15 pounds.

Here is another problem with your analogy. Reality does not conform to mathematical perfection. I tested my paper loops to see what it took to crush them. Some collapsed with 12 washers and others with 15. That is why I have 11 single washers at the top of my model. You can't have perfect strings in the real world.

So how could WTC7 have a perfect fire to weaken perfect columns too make the back edge of the building give way and come down in such a perfectly horizontal manner?

psik

Carcano


Are you suggesting building codes allow for the complete collapse of a building if only ONE support column fails?

Good question, because it is important.

Building codes are designed to give a certain amount of safety to the occupants of a building, not to protect the building. That hour was so the people could be evacuated safely and the fire department could get on scene and start fighting the fire. Most buildings exceed this standard.

In a perfect world we would build those buildings to resist everything, forever. But that perfection is not possible or cost effective. So building codes design in a calculated safety margin. In the case of the WTC buildings there was ~2 times the strength needed to hold up any conceivable normal load and wind loads up to 150 mph or so and meet those code requirements. To build stronger than that gets increasingly expensive and inefficient in a exponential curve(IE doubling the strength costs four times as much and cuts into floorspace in a similar fashion). You could build to near perfect resistance but you end up with a pyramid that has only tiny spaces to rent(space being the goal of the whole endeavor).

The codes specify that a building will resist ANY structural collapse in a fire for at least an hour(there are various standards of how that is measured), both towers exceeded that standard even though they were seriously damaged IN ADDITION to having fires many times more extensive than the codes considered. It's like the claims that the buildings were designed to survive the impact of a big plane(actually, no consideration or calculations have been found, only claims). They did survive the impacts. But they were not designed to survive that impact AND the huge, fuel-fed, multifloor fires for more than an hour(or actually, at all, the fires envisioned by the codes was a single floor fire with sprinkler system operational and firefighters fighting the fire). Tower 2 DID survive for an hour, Tower 1 survived for two. So the buildings actually exceeded their designed-in safety factor. If the planes impact had not cut the three stairwells many of the people above the impact zones would have had at least a chance to get out, but then if the Titanic would have had more lifeboats maybe no-one would have died there. New technology often has hidden faults found only when disaster happens.

In 7, it was not only one column failing, it was also damage caused by the collapse of Tower 1, the fuel tanks on the critical floors(5-7) and the several hours of unfought fires. The failure of the single column(79)was just the straw that broke the camel's back, leading to the progressive collapse(seismic records indicate that the entire collapse took 18 seconds, only the last 7 of which could be seen in the videos). This building crumbled instead of failing all at once. Groans and other noises were reported by firefighters at 2:00pm, indicating structure was approaching failure, transits measured dangerous leaning of the whole thing and firefighters were pulled away from the vicinity three hours before it collapsed because they knew the building was going to fail. Three hours later it did fail. They made a wise decision when they "pulled it".

By the way, look into what firefighters say about truss frame floors and ceilings. They don't trust trusses for very good reasons, they just do not stand up to fires very well and they fail suddenly and catastrophically. It is a leading cause of firefighter deaths. It's bad enough when individual structural members fail, it's entirely another thing when the whole floor or ceiling comes down at the same time.

Grumpy:cool:

Rhaedas


I disagree that one should not use direct argument against any kind of denier. Granted, if you don't have the time or patience, maybe it's not worth the effort, but even an old subject that has been addressed time and time again should be approached as if it's a new one, simply for the fact that to just blow someone off with insults gives them a lot more credit than if you actually counter their claim, even if for the umpteenth time.

That was my thought as well, daylight is the most effective disinfectant. But I carefully explained what is known about the collapse of WTC 7 and psi didn't even read it(wonder if he key word searched it, that's what he calls research), posting inanely asking the same question as if I had said nothing. So I'm through wasting my time on him. But I will continue to discuss the subject if someone asks cogent questions.

Grumpy:cool:

In 7, it was not only one column failing, it was also damage caused by the collapse of Tower 1, the fuel tanks on the critical floors(5-7) and the several hours of unfought fires. The failure of the single column(79)was just the straw that broke the camel's back, leading to the progressive collapse
Are you suggesting that something OTHER than support columns prevent a building from collapsing?

Carcano


Are you suggesting that something OTHER than support columns prevent a building from collapsing?

Well, in the cases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the perimeter frame also supported the building. In the case of building 7 it was the failure of column 79 that was the final failure that led to collapse. As in MacGyver1968's bowling ball example, it was the last string to be cut that overloaded all the rest, when it failed the rest could no longer stand the load and the building came down.

Grumpy:cool:

When the top of the block tilted one way, the bottom of the block shifted sideways in the opposite direction, shearing the connections between it and the rest of the building, turning into rubble in the process. The center of gravity dropped straight down. The experts don't discuss this because it is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Most of the OCT believers I have mentioned that to deny that rotation could occur. They claim it just tilted. So what was the moment of inertia of 30 stories that had to weigh at least 100,000 tons. But in addition to that, 283 columns which had to be strong enough to support that weight would have had to be broken to allow that rotation which you insist happened.

Here is a video about the center of rotation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw


I could explain the physics I taught for over 30 years, but just like a biology teacher cannot get a Creationist raised child to understand the facts, his mind has already been made up, his conclusions already made before he hears the first word.

So how does your 30 years of physics account for that rotation which is even more important than the location of the center of mass whose importance you worked so hard to down play? You play the same psychological game as Jonathan Kay of associating anyone that doesn't buy the idiotic Official Conspiracy Theory with Creationists or Moon Hoaxers or JFK conspiracists.


psikeyhackr never had any arguments in the first place, outside of his "I don't understand it, so it can't be true." attitude. He probably needs to go back to breakfornews with killtown and fintan, they think he's a genius(which, compared to christophera with his idiotic concrete core claims, he is). As long as he is playing in that children's sandbox he gets plenty of ego stroking for his delusions, it's just when he interrupts the adult's conversation at a real science forum that he is called out on his idiotic non-sense.

The Curmudgeon of Stupidity has not said my velocity calculation for a mass to reach WTC7 from the top of WTC1 is correct, nor explained what is wrong with it, but claims this is a REAL SCIENCE FORUM. His blather about Einsteinian Physics is of no practical importance in relation to what happened on 9/11. The airliner that impacted the south tower was doing 0.0000821% of light speed so doing calculations for the difference between Einstainian and Newtonian Physics is would just be time wasting idiotic busywork.

psik

Well, in the cases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the perimeter frame also supported the building. In the case of building 7 it was the failure of column 79 that was the final failure that led to collapse. As in MacGyver1968's bowling ball example, it was the last string to be cut that overloaded all the rest, when it failed the rest could no longer stand the load and the building came down.

Having the perimeter wall supporting the whole structure would be extremely unusual in a post 1940s office building.

None of the tall buildings I've ever seen being constructed are built this way...they all have 'curtain' walls mounted on the edge of cement floors, which are supported by dozens of internal columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtain_wall#History

Do you have a link to WTC7 architectural plans...so we can verify?

Well, in the cases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the perimeter frame also supported the building. In the case of building 7 it was the failure of column 79 that was the final failure that led to collapse. As in MacGyver1968's bowling ball example, it was the last string to be cut that overloaded all the rest, when it failed the rest could no longer stand the load and the building came down.

But how could it come down so perfectly. The strings on the bowling could not be that exact. Some would be stronger than others, they would not all break simultaneously so the bowling ball would swing one way or the other. So how did the roofline of WTC7 stay so straight. I actually do not talk about WTC7 much because it is so uninteresting. A perfect collapse from fire and supposed hurled debris is ridiculous.

psik

Carcano


Having the perimeter wall supporting the whole structure would be extremely unusual in a post 1940s office building.

It's common practice today to build tubular buildings, with or without a core

As I have explained, the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had perimeter frames made of individual pieces, those frames supported ~50% of the weight of the building and absorbed all wind loads. The cores of all three buildings only supported vertical loads(the other 50%).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wtc7_collapse_progression.png/800px-Wtc7_collapse_progression.png

There were 57 perimeter frame members and the core contained 25(58-81)core columns. Everything else in the floorplan was floor trusses similar to the towers, hung between the outer frame and the core, with the exception that the floor trusses were attached firmly at both ends in the vicinity of columns 79-81. They served the structural function of bracing those specific columns which supported the East Penthouse, which housed heavy equipment(pumps for the cooling towers, transformers, etc).


None of the tall buildings I've ever seen being constructed are built this way...they all have 'curtain' walls mounted on the edge of cement floors, which are supported by dozens of internal columns.

There was no structural concrete in any of those three buildings. The ONLY concrete in the Towers was in the floors, 4 inches of lightweight concrete poured in the floor pans to walk on, and in the heavier floors of the equipment levels and the core. Building 7 contained cooling towers for the power plant it was built over and three separate sets of diesel generators which had concrete pads under them, but otherwise it was similar to the towers.


Do you have a link to WTC7 architectural plans...so we can verify?

The plans themselves are proprietary(like the secret recipes of Coca-Cola), but there is more than enough info in the NIST (http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861612) report to answer your questions. Download the pdf and enjoy.

Grumpy:cool:

As I have explained, the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had perimeter frames made of individual pieces, those frames supported ~50% of the weight of the building and absorbed all wind loads. The cores of all three buildings only supported vertical loads(the other 50%).

Like the core didn't sway with the rest of the building.

But if it did sway then how did the force get transferred to the core?

psik

It's common practice today to build tubular buildings, with or without a core

As I have explained, the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had perimeter frames made of individual pieces, those frames supported ~50% of the weight of the building and absorbed all wind loads. The cores of all three buildings only supported vertical loads(the other 50%).

I looked up tubular building systems, and they are specifically designed to resist LATERAL loads like wind pressure, not vertical gravity loads.

A building that completely collapses in a few seconds MUST experience a failure of the majority of its vertical gravity load bearing support columns.

I looked up tubular building systems, and they are specifically designed to resist LATERAL loads like wind pressure, not vertical gravity loads.

That makes no sense. A skyscraper has to do both. The problem is that different sources use language in different vague and ambiguous ways and it gets interpreted in varying ways by different people.

psik

In tube building design, the outer columns (the tube) does support gravity load, usually 50 percent or so of the gravity loads in the best types. The compression of these outer columns helps resist the bending force from the lateral loads.

The rest of the columns take gravity load with a little lateral load due to interaction as the building sways and the center core around the elevator banks takes the rest as shear walls.

Carcano


I looked up tubular building systems, and they are specifically designed to resist LATERAL loads like wind pressure, not vertical gravity loads.

Then you haven't "looked up" tube frame buildings, as they ARE designed to hold vertical as well as wind loads, their cores may or may not take any wind loads(in WTC the cores in the towers only had vertical loading, WTC 7 had a mix, with the three columns holding up the East Penthouse(79, 80 and 81)tied in to the external frame in a rigid fashion by the floor trusses).


A building that completely collapses in a few seconds MUST experience a failure of the majority of its vertical gravity load bearing support columns.

No, not in the real world. All that has to happen is that enough of that strength is lost(through damage or fire)so that the remaining strength is insufficient to hold that load, whether that is half the columns, or only a few(which is much more likely to be the case). Buildings are only built with sufficient strength to carry the load plus a safety factor. It only takes losing a few columns among dozens to use up that safety factor(especially if they are right next to each other)and any further erosion of that strength means failure. Once gravity drops the top a few feet the kinetic energy overwhelms the remaining strength, gravity always wins.

Grumpy:cool:

That makes no sense. A skyscraper has to do both. The problem is that different sources use language in different vague and ambiguous ways and it gets interpreted in varying ways by different people.


He's talking about additional load. Why would a skyscraper needs to be designed to hold additional weight beyond what a full building would be, plus a safety factor? It's not like gravity will increase. Whereas wind has a huge force laterally, particularly on a large square, flat surface. Look at the new Freedom Tower's design for ways to reduce this, and allow for less concern (so less material) for countering these forces.

You're right. It is not your fault the NIST report is regarded as real research. You haven't even read it, opting instead to word search and frown at the fact that certain buzzwords aren't used as many times as you'd like.

I know for a fact Grumpy already addressed this, so the fact that you simply repeat the same insanely-held notions despite having been corrected means you aren't any different than the "no planers" yourself.

"Concrete" is a buzz word?

"Center of gravity" is a buzz word?

I read every usage of concrete in the entire report. Usually that meant reading the entire paragraph or more in the vicinity to understand why they were discussing it. There were more than 3,000 occurrences. If anything what I found odd was how often they repeat the same sentence or entire paragraph. I would not be surprised if 20% of the NIST report is just repetition of the same thing.

I did the same for steel. I found the three instances where they say "roughly 200,000 tons of steel". There was nothing like that for concrete. In four years no one has come back at me saying where the NIST specifies the total for the concrete and said how much and where it is in the report. But a number of people have CLAIMED it is there and then accuse me of being lazy. So why can't they come up with a number?

This business involve the psychological fixation on authority. That is a bigger problem than 9/11.

Grumpy has been silent on his admission that the top of the south tower rotated. :eek:

psik

Concrete is a buzz word?

"Center of gravity" is a buzz word?

I read every usage of concrete in the entire report. Usually that meant reading the entire paragraph or more in the vicinity to understand why they were discussing it. There were more than 3,000 occurrences. If anything what I found odd was how often they repeat the same sentence or entire paragraph. I would not be surprised if 20% of the NIST report is just repetition of the same thing.

I did the same for steel. I found the three instances where they say "roughly 200,000 tons of steel". There was nothing like that for concrete. In four years no one has come back at me saying where the NIST specifies the total for the concrete and said how much and where it is in the report. But a number of people have CLAIMED it is there and then accuse me of being lazy. So why can't they come up with a number?

This business involve the psychological fixation on authority. That is a bigger problem than 9/11.

Grumpy has been silent on his admission that the top of the south tower rotated. :eek:

psik

So in other words, you didn't read it. You skimmed it. Yet you're here criticizing it.

I think that's all that needs to be said.

psikeyhackr


Grumpy has been silent on his admission that the top of the south tower rotated

I never denied it. It is a fact that the top block of Tower 2 rotated AROUND IT'S CENTER OF GRAVITY, with the top part going one way and the bottom part going the opposite way SHEARING ALL CONNECTIONS(in the core and perimeter frame)WITH THE REST OF THE BUILDING. Gravity did the rest.

http://www.debunking911.com/sim1.gifhttp://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg

Grumpy:cool:

I never denied it. It is a fact that the top block of Tower 2 rotated AROUND IT'S CENTER OF GRAVITY, with the top part going one way and the bottom part going the opposite way SHEARING ALL CONNECTIONS(in the core and perimeter frame)WITH THE REST OF THE BUILDING. Gravity did the rest.

http://www.debunking911.com/sim1.gifhttp://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg

Grumpy:cool:

I didn't say you denied it. I said you were silent.

So how do you explain it? What was the moment of intertia of 29 stories. What supplied the energy to rotate it and shear 283 columns? The building only deflected 15 inches when the plane hit it and then oscillated for 4 minutes.

In fact what do you have as a source supporting your statement that the top portion rotated around its center of gravity? If no one ever specifies where it is then how can anyone know?

psik

So in other words, you didn't read it. You skimmed it. Yet you're here criticizing it.

I think that's all that needs to be said.


You think you could read 10,000 pages and notice what was not there without looking for it specifically. Why not just look for it from the start? What are electronic documents for? Searching and reading the searched portion is not skimming. Yeah, I criticize it for what I know isn't there. Grumpy talks about the center of gravity of the top of the south tower but that is not in the NIST report either.

So I want to know his source for this rotation around the center of gravity. But then maybe he is just making it up.

psik

You think you could read 10,000 pages and notice what was not there without looking for it specifically. Why not just look for it from the start? What are electronic documents for? Searching and reading the searched portion is not skimming. Yeah, I criticize it for what I know isn't there. Grumpy talks about the center of gravity of the top of the south tower but that is not in the NIST report either.

So I want to know his source for this rotation around the center of gravity. But then maybe he is just making it up.

psik

So you think they put it in a PDF so you don't have to read it all?

Again, 'nuff said.

I criticize it for what I know isn't there.
You criticize it because you're a clueless nut.

You pretend to address science. You apparently have never even worked in building construction, much less the complexities of design. You certainly couldn't touch engineering with a 10-foot pole. Thus you have missed a lot of useful information already given to you. You speak a lot about mass and gravity, but unless I overlooked it, you have blindly ignored that, at this very highest level of analysis, this event was a horrific demonstration of conservation of energy.

A missile hits a tower and conveys all of its kinetic energy, plus the heat of the exploding fuel. It imparts shock. The building reacts. Things bend and break. Rivets, struts, trusses, pins and cables exceed their design limits and snap and pop loose. Bolts shear. Welds break. Cantilevered beams are stressed beyond limit and fracture and crack. The concrete slabs on the upper levels shatter and pulverize. The building has a frequency response and so it rumbles and shakes, softening up the lower levels, and it oscillates, imparting huge torsion and shear stresses on the lower beams which crack and pop their anchors. And then the entire upper mass, minus whatever was ejected, all the particles that were flying laterally, are opposed by the far wall, and they recoil, as the far wall shatters. At this point that aggregate of flying building parts achieves lateral equilibrium and comes to rest on the rapidly disintegrating upper frame. A second huge impulse is delivered when all of this debris comes crashing down on the "floor". But there is no floor. Just more time to accelerate. To these dynamics add the pressure of exploding fuel, which further shatters the upper slabs, and the white-hot thermal blast, which liquefies the re-bar and fasteners, and liberates the upper floors to drop.

I think that when you get to the point that you understand that what Bin Laden did was to drop a building onto a building, using an aircraft as a shear, a bomb, an incendiary device and a missile, you can stop trying to invent science to prop up your nutty half-wit dreams that "the government" is a demon. The day you pin this squarely on Bin Laden, and be grateful to the brave people who responded, is the day you move on.

Get over it: you're simply wrong. You know nothing about science, your "model" is a joke, and so you've screwed up your whole rationale for reaching this conclusion. If this were a homework assignment, you'd get an F. So what next? I say bail out. You've got nothing going for you. You're simply out of your league.

So you think they put it in a PDF so you don't have to read it all?

Again, 'nuff said.

The physics of 9/11 happened on 9/11, long before they even started working on that report. Skyscrapers must support their own weight therefore the distributions of concrete and steel are relevant to the physics problem.

What is stopping you from reading the report and telling us where they specified the total amount of concrete?

I told you they specified in three places that the distribution of weight was important to analysing the impact, but then they did not do it. Here is some of what they had to say:


NCSTAR 1-2A Baseline == distribution of mass


The wind loads were calculated on the basis of 2.5 percent total damping. This value includes the intrinsic damping of the structural systems plus the supplemental damping provided by the dampers.

The differential static and dynamic shears between successive levels were calculated and distributed using two different methods:

• The static wind load to be applied to each floor was determined from the shear diagram.
• The dynamic wind load to be applied to each floor was based on the distribution of mass over the tower height, the fundamental mode shape, and the dynamic component of the lateral wind-induced sway at the roof.

Note that for α = 90 degrees, coefficients were not found in the microfilm of the WSHJ Wind Reports for calculating the static component of the wind forces for WTC 1. Accordingly, the static coefficients were deduced from data for the α = 270 degrees, for WTC 2. By observation of the static coefficient data, it was determined that the basic data for the two towers is shifted by 180 degrees.

Considering the 24 different wind directions and the four combinations of the static and dynamic components of the N-S and E-W components of the building forces listed below, there were 96 different wind load cases for each tower.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

NCSTAR 1-5D Ceilings.doc == weight distribution

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations
Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

NCSTAR 1-2 Ch 1-6 == mass distribution

The densities of specific materials were scaled to obtain the desired magnitudes for the service live loads and superimposed dead loads. The densities of the tower contents (workstations and gypsum walls) were scaled by the appropriate ratios to obtain the desired distribution of live loads in the core and truss floor areas. The densities of all the remaining tower structural components were scaled proportionately to obtain the desired superimposed dead loads. These additional loads were important for obtaining an accurate mass distribution in the towers and inertial effects in the impact response. The in-service live load used was assumed to be 25 percent of the design live load on the floors inside and outside the core.
The in-service live load was selected based on a survey of live loads in office buildings (Culver 1976) and on engineering judgment. The uncertainty in the amount of in-service live load was accounted for in the sensitivity analyses (Chapter 8 of NIST NCSTAR 1-2B) and in the global impact simulations (Chapter 7
of this report).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

NCSTAR 1-2B Chap 1 thru 8 == mass distribution

E.8 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSES
The objectives of the uncertainty analyses were to assess the effect of uncertainties associated with the aircraft and WTC towers parameters on the level of damage to the towers after impact and to determine the most influential modeling parameters that affect the damage estimates. Uncertainty arises in these analyses from the following key parameters:

• Aircraft impact parameters: aircraft speed, horizontal and vertical angles of incidence, orientation, and location of impact.
• Material properties: high strain rate material constitutive behavior and failure criteria for the towers and the aircraft.
• Aircraft mass and stiffness properties, and the jet fuel distribution in the aircraft.
• Tower parameters: structural strength and mass distribution, connection and joint positions relative to impact and joint failure behavior.
• Nonstructural building contents that may share in absorbing energy imparted by the aircraft impact.

An important source of uncertainty that is not listed in these key parameters is the inaccuracy associated with mathematical or numerical models. The inaccuracies of models, also known as modeling errors, are deterministic in nature, but are often treated as random variables to characterize the effects of the analysis methodologies on the calculated response. All of these variables did not necessarily have a significant effect on the estimated impact damage to the WTC towers.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

NCSTAR 1-2B Chap 9 thru 11 == mass distribution

11.8 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSES
The objectives of the uncertainty analyses were to assess the effect of uncertainties associated with the aircraft and WTC towers parameters on the level of damage to the towers after impact and to determine the most influential modeling parameters that affect the damage estimates. Uncertainty arises in these analyses from the following key parameters: (1) aircraft impact parameters (speed, horizontal and vertical angles of incidence, orientation, and location of impact), (2) material properties and failure criteria for the towers and the aircraft, (3) aircraft parameters (mass and stiffness properties, and jet fuel distribution), (4) tower parameters (structural strength and mass distribution, connections behavior), and (5) nonstructural building contents that may share in absorbing energy imparted by the aircraft impact.
Another important source of uncertainty is the inaccuracy associated with mathematical or numerical models. These uncertainties, also known as modeling errors, are deterministic in nature, but are often treated as random variables to characterize the effects of the analysis methodologies on the calculated response. All of these variables did not necessarily have a significant effect on the estimated impact damage to the WTC towers.

Notice how the last two are repetitions of the same information but formatted differently. My searches turned up a lot of that. That report is very fluffed up but fails to ask obvious questions.

How much have you read? Does this mean it must all be true and correct because you have not read it?

psik

A missile hits a tower and conveys all of its kinetic energy, plus the heat of the exploding fuel. It imparts shock. The building reacts. Things bend and break. Rivets, struts, trusses, pins and cables exceed their design limits and snap and pop loose. Bolts shear. Welds break. Cantilevered beams are stressed beyond limit and fracture and crack. The concrete slabs on the upper levels shatter and pulverize. The building has a frequency response and so it rumbles and shakes, softening up the lower levels, and it oscillates, imparting huge torsion and shear stresses on the lower beams which crack and pop their anchors. And then the entire upper mass, minus whatever was ejected, all the particles that were flying laterally, are opposed by the far wall, and they recoil, as the far wall shatters.

The building had to be designed to withstand wind shear forces from any direction. The difference with an aircraft impact is that it is concentrated in a small area but it is over quickly. The buildings might have to withstand high winds for hours or even days.

The towers were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. So that might come to 26 inches at the 81st floor where the plane impacted the south tower. The empirical data from the NIST indicates the building deflected 15 inches and then oscillated for four minutes.

Your physics drama is so impressive! I notice you don't actually include any hard data about anything.

psik

That makes no sense. A skyscraper has to do both.
Yes and thats why skyscrapers have both.

A system of internal support columns for vertical gravity loads, and an external perimeter that resists lateral winds loads.

The building had to be designed to withstand wind shear forces from any direction. The difference with an aircraft impact is that it is concentrated in a small area but it is over quickly. The buildings might have to withstand high winds for hours or even days.

The towers were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. So that might come to 26 inches at the 81st floor where the plane impacted the south tower. The empirical data from the NIST indicates the building deflected 15 inches and then oscillated for four minutes.

You forgot what happened after the plane slammed into...no, THROUGH the building. Even if there is debris danger from a hurricane, it won't do what a fully fueled, full speed impact of a 767 will do internally.

Oh right, that had no effect to the tower.

Yes and thats why skyscrapers have both.

A system of internal support columns for vertical gravity loads, and an external perimeter that resists lateral winds loads.

Right! And that's not even to mention the effect of hundreds of tons of burning jet fuel !

Right! And that's not even to mention the effect of hundreds of tons of burning jet fuel !

10,000 gallons is 33 tons according to the NIST and half of that was burned off in the initial fireball.

psik

10,000 gallons is 33 tons according to the NIST and half of that was burned off in the initial fireball.

Which set other things on fire. Never used diesel to start a burn pile, have you? Works nicely...

Which set other things on fire. Never used diesel to start a burn pile, have you? Works nicely...

Jet fuel is kerosene. But there was not hundreds of tons.

psik

Jet fuel is kerosene. But there was not hundreds of tons.

Which has close characteristics to diesel. I never used Jet A to start a bonfire myself. And it wasn't the jet fuel that burned for an hour, so why do you needs tons? Missing the point?

Which has close characteristics to diesel. I never used Jet A to start a bonfire myself. And it wasn't the jet fuel that burned for an hour, so why do you needs tons? Missing the point?

The point is enough steel could not have been heated to weaken in two hours to collapse regardless.

That is why you exaggerate the quantity of jet fuel.

If the steel was equally distributed there would have been 900 tons on each level. So even if there was only 450 tons of steel it still conducts heat. It would have been conducted to floors without fires. So the argument that planes could bring the buildings down in less than two hours has always been absurd.

psik

psikeyhackr


The point is enough steel could not have been heated to weaken in two hours to collapse regardless.

That is why you exaggerate the quantity of jet fuel.

If the steel was equally distributed there would have been 900 tons on each level. So even if there was only 450 tons of steel it still conducts heat. It would have been conducted to floors without fires. So the argument that planes could bring the buildings down in less than two hours has always been absurd

So the end of a 10 foot bar of steel cannot be heated to a red glow in a fire without the whole bar glowing red? When you realize just how stupid that idea is, you will have provided the logic to understand just how stupid what you just posted is.

Grumpy:cool:

The building had to be designed to withstand wind shear forces from any direction.
A kite can withstand wind from any direction. So can a palm tree. Or a Yugo. You're not even close to what happened. You say force, like it means something to you. Just what does it mean? How much force is there in a 1 m/s wind and how much in 1 m/s airplane? Until you actually try to connect the dots you have nothing.



The difference with an aircraft impact is that it is concentrated in a small area but it is over quickly.
Being over quickly is what is so bad. Energy divided by time is power. As the time to transfer the energy decreases, the power increases. Being over quickly is what makes a bomb so destructive. Being over quickly is what makes a small slug capable of penetrating lumber when fired from a muzzle. Being over quickly is what makes a lightning stroke capable of blasting a large tree out of the ground. Do you even know the relationship between energy, power and force? You would need to start here. If you had even a clue, that is.


The buildings might have to withstand high winds for hours or even days.
Another consequence of practicing physics without a license. The upper limit on power is


P = 1/2 ρ A v3.

A is surface area, ρ is the density of air, and v is the wind velocity. Now just how much power are you talking about? Hint: stick with kilograms, meters, seconds, or you'll screw it up.



The towers were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. So that might come to 26 inches at the 81st floor where the plane impacted the south tower.
Since the principle in a collision is conservation of energy, not conservation of sway, you have to be able to explain why this matters. Until you address the laws of physics, you can't possibly hope to pretend to use numbers and expect it to mean anything. I can get all the numbers I want from a lotto ticket. Then we can sit and argue all day about which numbers rule, and which drool. So far, yours just suck, as in a vacuum, since they need math to have any practical use.


The empirical data from the NIST indicates the building deflected 15 inches and then oscillated for four minutes.Empirical? You mean someone just happened to have a laser on a reflector at the 81st floor at the time the plane slammed into it? Suppose I told you the number was 16". Or 14". Can you say with certainty that the building would still be standing under any amount of sway? "Build to withstand 36 inches" is irrelevant, just as "good for 50,000 miles" is irrelevant to getting a flat tire. You can overinflate a new tire the day you buy it and you'll wake up with a steel plate in your head. Which is kind of what your pseudoscience is like. And compressed air - that's just like the wind right? When you get around to proving to me that a jetliner slamming into a building has less power than a high wind, you lead me down this blind alley. Until then, this is all styrofoam.


Your physics drama is so impressive! I notice you don't actually include any hard data about anything.
Says the dramaturge. It's not the hard data that's the killer for you, it's the math and science that applies them that leaves you on the 81st floor trying to bat away an incoming aircraft with a large fan. See if you can do a simple math problem. Or at least be able to speak intelligently about the implications of the math rather than pulling conclusions out of your tailpipe.

The point is enough steel could not have been heated to weaken in two hours to collapse regardless.

That is why you exaggerate the quantity of jet fuel.

You're deliberately evading Rhaedas' point. Did the jet fuel burn for two hours?

A kite can withstand wind from any direction. So can a palm tree. Or a Yugo. You're not even close to what happened. You say force, like it means something to you. Just what does it mean? How much force is there in a 1 m/s wind and how much in 1 m/s airplane? Until you actually try to connect the dots you have nothing.

I withstand wind from any direction also. However, the other day it blew me over. This can only mean I was the victim of a controlled demolition. I demand a full inquiry and my own website.

Strawman. The fuel helped start the fires. They weren't the main source of heat. And you're claiming that all the heat was conducted through the bolts holding the steel beams together? They weren't one piece, nor would they be a perfect conductor. Nor do you need all the steel to weaken evenly, you just need enough to breach what the safety range was to continue to hold the building up. Once it began to go, the remaining support's load would also increase, and you have a cascading failure. You can see in progressive pictures sides of the building beginning to buckle. But you continue to reach for anything that may not have a clear answer to be a reason why it must not have happened.

Another consequence of practicing physics without a license. The upper limit on power is


P = 1/2 ρ A v3.

A is surface area, ρ is the density of air, and v is the wind velocity. Now just how much power are you talking about? Hint: stick with kilograms, meters, seconds, or you'll screw it up.

You can look up and quote an equation. I am really impressed. So why did you stop there?

It does not change the fact that buildings must be designed to take wind loads for hours and an airline impact is over in seconds. The difference is in concentration. Your coming up with an equation does not change the empirical data of the deflection.

psik

So the end of a 10 foot bar of steel cannot be heated to a red glow in a fire without the whole bar glowing red? When you realize just how stupid that idea is, you will have provided the logic to understand just how stupid what you just posted is.

Grumpy:cool:

Hey, Grumpy! Remember those 30 stories that you said rotated around their center of gravity and must have sheared off columns to do?

You haven't explained that and you are changing subject. YOU said it happened not me. You provided the picture not me.

psik

Strawman. The fuel helped start the fires. They weren't the main source of heat. And you're claiming that all the heat was conducted through the bolts holding the steel beams together? They weren't one piece, nor would they be a perfect conductor.

Talk about STRAWMAN. More exaggeration. Who said anything had to be a perfect conductor? And if bolts are holding two pieces of steel together the conduction is not going to be just through the bolts. And how much of the steel in the core was welded together? Was any of it welded together? When do we ever see good pictures of joints in the core?

But we see those truss flanges again, and again, and again, and again....

That seems to be standard marketing technique. We are bombarded with what we are supposed to think and whatever we are not supposed to think about tends to disappear. Like the quantity of concrete in the towers. But the core supported 53% of the buildings weight not the trusses.

psik

Talk about STRAWMAN. More exaggeration. Who said anything had to be a perfect conductor? And if bolts are holding two pieces of steel together the conduction is not going to be just through the bolts. And how much of the steel in the core was welded together? Was any of it welded together? When do we ever see good pictures of joints in the core?

Yours was a strawman, no one claims jet fuel was the heat source. Mine was not, I was asking why you think that steel beams connected by bolts, rivets, welds, whatever, would be able to dissipate all the generated heat from the fires, because, as Grumpy pointed out, and as you brushed off as changing the subject (ironically), even a solid rod of metal can be red hot on one end, and not on the other. Ergo, the heat is not perfectly conducted.

You're deliberately evading Rhaedas' point. Did the jet fuel burn for two hours?

The north tower came down in less than two hours. So we should have data on how much steel was in the area to have an idea how much energy was required to get the steel hot enough. Especially considering that no skyscrapers before or sense ever collapsed due to fir. And yeah I know no others were hit by airliners but the buildings survived that.

A little though experiment about the collapse eliminates wasting time on fires and fuel.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories, then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50, and the next 65 and then 80 and then 95. So all of the way down the building had to get stronger and heavier. That is true of all skyscrapers. So this presents a problem just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. How could a smaller lighter mass accelerate stronger and heavier masses and destroy the supports which must have held them while doing the destruction in less than triple the free fall time of 9.2 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

So a 60 foot gap is bigger than airliner impact and fires can account for so how is the collapse explained? But then everyone does not demand data on the towers and Grumpy doesn't explain his confessed rotation of the top of the south tower. LOL

psik