9/11 was an inside job

Long since dealt with in this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, like the NIST dealt with the total amount of concrete.

These websites that claim to be scientific and then pretend to do science are even more ridiculous than the crazy conspiracy threads. Science is not really about proving things, it is about understanding things. People talking about scientific proof are pretending to be intelligent.

You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without accurate distribution of steel and concrete data.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm saying the apparent cause is the default position, and disproving that would require stronger evidence than you have yet been able to present.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

spidergoat

But it is scientifically plausible, based on the available evidence and physical laws, that they were the root cause for the physical events of 9-11, no matter what the motivations and source of the people flying them. No other mystic explanations needed(thermite cutting vertical beams, explosives, windowless aircraft, UFOs, beams from space, spray on C4, Illuminati, Mossad, CIA, chemtrails, concrete cores(in fact structural concrete anywhere above ground level except on the mechanical floors, floor trusses were not structural), etc., etc.). I could really not care less about what Troothers believe about most of that, but they are not going to hijack real physics like Creationists try to do against real science in evolution and biology. And psi's posts do exactly that.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Grump, can you explain to me--the layman--what the big deal is about this "potential energy" thing psi is so hung up on? Why does he insist on knowing exactly how much concrete was in the buildings? Better yet, since the simplest answer to that would be "He doesn't understand physics," why isn't it important to know such a figure? It just seems like he can't get over that point, and I can't find an answer to why he thinks not knowing it would prevent accurate simulations.

 

I think what's happening is that people want to believe that the government is evil, or that it's controlled by some powerful organization. It's more comforting somehow than thinking things are just out of control. It's a facet of human psychology that most people make such moral judgements first and then go looking for reasons to justify it.

What Dilemma? Moral Evaluation Shapes Factual Belief.

 

Theres no reason it cant be BOTH...evil and out of control.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your approach shows the same kind of passive compliance that led to the slaughter of several million people in WWII

Governments are very often EVIL...in the purest sense of the word.

 

Balerion

Every beam lifted into place in the buildings has a potential energy equal to the energy released if that beam was dropped from that height when it hit the ground. Tower 1's estimated energy released on ground impact was on the order of a quarter kiloton, most of it in the form of heat, deformation and shaking the ground. About what the Hiroshima bomb generated in heat, blast and radiation. Tower 2, for physical reasons, was slightly less. What psi is trying to use it for is a mystery to me.

He's trying to treat the buildings as solid, uniform masses so it will fit into a simple equation that he thinks represents the reactions of a complex structure with many interacting subsystems, each of which have consequences to the result. There was nothing simple in the design of the Twin Towers, they were cutting edge technology when they were built.

As an example of one of his falsehoods it is fairly easy to find how much concrete was in the Towers above ground.

One floor was an area of 208^2 feet=~40,000 square feet. The core was 138 by 78 or ~11,000 square feet. The concrete on the floor trusses was 4 inches(a third of a foot)deep giving us ~10,000 cubic feet of concrete on each of 86 floors at 110 lbs per cubic foot gives us about 5000 tons in the floors for each of the 86 floors which were identical in construction. The cores were 2/3 elevator shafts so it had 3500 sq ft of 6 inch normal concrete at 160 lbs per cubic foot gives us 272,000 lbs for a total amount of concrete for each floor of about 5236 tons.

Mechanical floors were easier, just multiply area(~40,000)times depth(.5) gives 20,000 times weight/cu ft(160) equals ~3.2 million pounds or about 16,000 tons(times three mechanical floors).

There was about 500,000 tons of concrete in either tower above ground, only about 50,000 of it structural.

That is the total of all concrete above the ground floor and with a little intelligence the distribution can be easily derived as well. Why couldn't psi get these results despite all his years of searching? Because he considers keyword searches to be thinking.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Suppose you hold a brick 1 inch above your foot and drop it. How much would that bother you?

Suppose you hold that same brick 5 feet above you foot. That will at least hurt, might even break a bone.

How about a 200 pound block of steel 1 inch above your foot?

When you drop an object the force of gravity causes it to accelerate. The height decreases and the velocity increases. Potential Energy is converted into Kinetic Energy. 50 tons of steel on the 100 floor has more potential energy on the 10 floor. So if the building is bottom heavy it has a lot less potential energy than if the weight was the same on every level.

Now supposedly the Potential Energy of the portion of the skyscrapers above the impact points was able to crush the structures below. But crushing those structures requires energy and that mass must be accelerated if it is supposed to crush supports even further down.

That is one of the curious things about this ten year old scientific discussion. Nobody is telling us how much energy was required to collapse each LEVEL all of the way down the building. But as the columns get thicker the amount of energy required increases just as the mass increases.

It takes 0.118 joules of energy to flatten one of my paper loops. That is what absorbs the Kinetic Energy of my falling washers. So In order for a complete collapse to occur the Potential Energy must be equal to or greater than the energy required to crush the structure.

psik

 

No, in that case, there was every reason to be watchful of those forces responsible for mass death in WWII, they made no secret of their evil.

 

Ah, so he's either being ignorant or dishonest about the concrete stuff. Got it. And yes, I've also taken him to task for not actually reading the report, but word-searching instead. I suppose it's no wonder then that he can't understand the concepts. He doesn't actually know them.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

And you call me a LIAR.

If I am trying to treat buildings as solid uniform masses then why is my model built of paper loops alternating with washers?

So the floors with trusses you talk about are not subsystems?

psik

 

And you evidence that any steel was heated to a red glow before the collapse is where?

psik

 

Richard Gage of 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' confronts the mainstream media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INe7K9org4&feature=g-all-lik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7eJORgF3a4

 

This is the hilarious thing about "experts" in relation to 9/11. My pledge father was an architect. The standard joke about them at Illinois Institute of Technology was that "architects study funny physics and funny math". Now if Richard Gage supposedly understood the physics of skyscrapers why didn't he think there was something peculiar within a few weeks of 9/11? Why was it years later listening to a radio program that he had this epiphany?

I drove into Chicago in 2008 when he did one of his dog and pony shows at Circle Campus. I got in line and asked him afterwards about the steel and concrete distributions. He looked at me like I had grown a second head and then said the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. But I had emailed him in 2007 about the Potential Energy of the towers and he responded.

psik

 

Jet fuel burns at between 800 to 1500F. Metal starts to glow at around 750F.

Next question?

 

So you are good at providing incomplete and distorted information without sources.

Is everyone supposed to be impressed?

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

http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Temperature_when_metal_glows_red/

I presume you do not expect people to research what you say. They are just supposed to take you word. The fuel will only get to very high temperatures in a controlled burn where the air is properly mixed with the fuel. That will only happen under controlled conditions like in an engine or foundry.

So according to the data for which I provided sources it will not raise the temperature enough for the metal to even glow in the dark.

psik

 

752 degrees F is still well within the range of temperatures that are possible in a fire. In fact I have read that 1000 degrees F is not at all impossible.

 

If we're going to discuss how hot it got, maybe we should discuss what was actually burning. Fuel provided an ignition, and helped start other things burning. It was not the main source. Wood, paper, gypsum, plastics. Also keep in mind the dynamics, you're not talking about an open flame, but enclosed areas that can heat up and then erupt when they get more oxygen. This was not a static situation at all, typical of most large enclosed fires.

 

Do you mean Celsius? Because those temps in F are on the very low end of the temps pretty much any fire would experience.

Troofs love to talk about "jet fueled fires", when in fact, it was "jet fuel started fires". The burning jet fuel caught everything on several floors on fire...then burned off. The temp it burns is pretty irrelevant to the collapse. It's the all of the office furniture and crap that burned that caused the steel to loose it's strength and fail.