Then why the conspiracy theories? If you admit you do not know... then you likely do not have the information to say the planes COULD NOT have caused it. You admit you don't know how it could or could not happen in one breathe, then say it didn't make sense in the other... so what grounds are you making this decision on?
That's the standard "argument from ignorance." The classic one is "I can not imagine how Man evolved from a single cell organism; therefore, creationism is true."
Alright. Here is a video I've have found intriguing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M&list=UUYPN6LhlIBXrDFxCNvRJaiQ It is quite long but worth the effort. Also, momentum is gaining (thanks to those associated with the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth) for an investigation into the collapse of building 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNOR5FiC-7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANYMXwFK0C8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOQ5Vl9d0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIQHVv-h-vg The events and subsequent effects of 9/11 are of such magnitude (the world we live in today; the lives lost and that continue to be lost on account of questionable forays into Iraq/Afghanistan) that it bears serious investigation and scrutiny/study. To dismiss it with a wave of the governments hand based upon its own report is not wise in my opinion. Peace. As an aside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLy012pNDs
I have not said anything about any conspiracies. If the physics dictates that their had to be a conspiracy that is too damn bad. You just need to emphasize name calling because so far neither you nor anyone else has built a self supporting physical where a small top portion can destroy a large intact portion by falling. Why not just do the physics and forget about conspiracies. psik
I asked it as a question because I'm trying not to assume anything. Try backing-off the attitude a little; people might treat you better. That is telling: before most of the investigations were even started or evidence collected, you filled the knowledge void in your head with fantasy. And that fantasy was so dense that even the unearthing and publicizing of (literally) tons of evidence of what happened, knowledge has been unable to displace your fantasy. Please quit with the games, you know what I was saying (again: people will treat you better if you stop trolling). The evidence has been thoroughly documented and you've seen the documentation. You confirmed in the first part of the post: None of that documentated evidence supports your fantasy. Even if you have problems with holes in the standard explanation, a logical person must be able to recognize that when evidence fits one explanation better than another, the explanation it fits better is likely to be the correct one. That's not just a lie, it's a stupid one. Just because the specific, obsucre, pointless question you keep asking isn't answered doesn't mean that structural engineering doesn't exist. The NIST gave a detailed description and the drawings exist that could enable you to build a new WTC. The fact that it hasn't been dumbed-down to answer the specific trolling-crackpot soundbyte question you keep asking doesn't count as a strike against them, it counts as a strike against you. Every time you say it, I hear instead "I'm pretending not to know that the details of the structural design are available." Oh, but you have. You haven't used the word, but you've described the concept. Two related ones, in fact: 1. You've said the official government accounts are lies. 2. You've said that pretty much every architect and engineer on the planet is complicit in maintaining that lie: that was your explanation for the relative silence on the matter from such people. What's your evidence of that? From what I've seen, discussion of this has been dropping on internet forums. It's getting pretty rare.
Internet forums are not the 'places' where this will be decided, nor are they necessarily the barometers one would look to for evidence...most of the populace is on information overload given so many past and current crises how does one keep up? This particular issue demands focus, reflection, and rigorous self examination. For years, there has been a call in effort on the part of C-SPAN viewers to revisit what brought down building 7. Finally, Richard Gage himself was given time on C-SPAN (one of the links in my earlier post). Granted, it is a small step, but given the resistance that must be overcome, I consider his appearance a substantial gain. Also, here is a link documenting recent efforts: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/895-911-truth-good-for-america.html
Yep. At this rate, by 2050 or so we might get enough interest for several angry and emotional documentaries - and millions of Internet posts.
Ya gotta keep the faith... look at mankind now after so many years of evolution...alas, his free fall into his own footprint will mirror the towers' collapse (and not just in the relative speed of the collapse when compared to their 'evolution' i.e. idea, design, construction etc.)...think: by design.
Which investigation has said anything about the distribution of mass down skyscrapers? The NIST report says in three places that they needed to know the weight distribution of the building to analyse its motion due to the impact. I could figure out that the information was necessary before I ever read the report. I built a model to demonstrate the effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q I wrote a program to demonstrate the effect of mass distribution on collapse time. http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306&sid=d4717b7ef93161c080ff6e376b277b38#64306 So all you can do is BELIEVE in AUTHORITY and not notice missing information. The NIST dose not specify the total amount of concrete much less its distribution. psik
A question I've often wanted to ask you psikey. Your question seems to be primarily about the cross-bracing (in relation to the steel anyway). What distribution do you think it would have had to have for the building to support its own weight?
It is not just about cross bracing. It is just that there is less data on that than on the columns. They are not in the blueprints. Level 90 had to support the weight of twice as many stories as level 100. But level 110 only had to support the roof. So if 100 had more steel than 110 then level 90 had to support more than double the weight of level 100. But the same thing continues all of the way down the building. The steel in the columns got thicker all of the way down. The walls of the box columns on the perimeter got thicker. But they look the same all of the way down. My point is that the amount of steel had to increase down the building and there is no official source providing that data and there are obvious and admitted flaws in Gregory Urich's data. What I don't understand is why everyone does not comprehend that obvious aspect of skyscrapers. For most people it is just BELIEVE in collapse or believe in conspiracy. Physics is not psychological bullsh!t. psik
My recollection is that there is a set of blueprints floating around detailing the columns on each floor that includes dimensions of the box columns (including thickness of steel used) surely once you know the density of the steel, or the range of densities of the steel, deriving the mass is trivial?
Lon Waters PhD had a website devoted to the columns in the core. He had diagrams showing the dimensions of the cross sectional areas of all of the columns up the core. I have seen it and I exchanged messages with him. Last I checked the site was gone. It has been gone for about two years. He never had data on horizontal beams nor did he have data on the perimeter wall panels. There were 2900 perimeter panels from the 9th floor to the top of the building and according to the NIST the perimeter supported 47% of the weight. Their total weight was around 27,000 tons and the heaviest was 22 tons according to an engineering magazine from 1970. You people who believe in the collapse have hardly investigated anything and then believe that people who don't agree with you are ignorant. Steel is 98% iron. Do you really think there is much variation in the densities of different types of structural steel? Ever heard of Google? Look it up. psik
Well, this thread has gone the way of the dodo... much like most conspiracy threads do... circular reasoning and stubborn insistence that "the man" is trying to lie to us for one reason or another... I dare say it's time we let this one go... Rest now, brave soldier, and enter into yon peaceful slumber... EDIT - Ah've been requested to leave this here post open a mite bit longer... lessee here what develops Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is the site I was thinking of: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html I recall using it in other discussions I've had in relation to this topic. I wonder who won this auction: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/new-york/world-trade-center-prints Keep this attitude up and I will infract and/or ban you. Perhaps if you spent less time knee-jerk reacting to what you think people are saying and more time actually responding to them you'd get on better. So, basically what you're telling me here is that the answer to your questions is every bit as trivial as I suggested it would be? According to howstuffworks the steel grade they used was A36. The floors themselves were made of a mix of A36 and ASTM A242. According to Wikipedia A36 Steel has a density of 7,800 kg/m[sup]3[/sup] According to this source A242 has a density of 7,850 kg/m[sup]3[/sup] However, according to this source it's either 7,700 to 8,030 kg/m[sup]3[/sup] or 8000 kg/m[sup]3[/sup] (compare this to the density of Iron at 7,874 kg/m[sup]3[/sup]). I think that if I have a 1000 foot long column of steel four inches on a side then it's going to have a mass of between 24,227 kg and 25,265 kg depending on which grade of steel is used. I also think that if you claim to be interested in physics, and claim to be interested in the distribution of mass within the towers, then it seems reasonable to me that you should be interested in potential variations in the second significant figure of the mass involved. It also beggers belief, in my opinion, that someone who has spent so much time and invested so much emotional capital in the issue of mass distribution within the towers, to the point of being derogatory and dismissive of reasonable questions, would choose to simply ignore this. But hey whatever floats your boat I guess. Of course, we're back to my original question - what do you think was neccessary in terms of cross-bracing to keep the towers stable?
You found a variation of FOUR PERCENT between the opposite extremes of 7,700 and 8030. Am I supposed to be impressed? I said steel was 98% Iron, so if the impurities for one type of steel are lighter than iron and heavier than iron for another type then what will the effects be? I have seen those blue prints before. Do you see where the horizontal beams are laid out in the core? I don't. But I see the locations of the toilets and urinals. The core was 85 by 135 feet. With 47 columns that would be a 6 by 8 array minus 1. So with 8 lengths 85 feet long and 6 lengths 135 feet long the length of horizontal beams would be more than 2.5 times the length of vertical steel on a given level. (8×85+6×135)÷(47×12) = 2.64 Lon Waters' site showed how the thickness and dimensions of the columns increased down the tower. The widest columns were 52 inches if memory serves. I have no data on how the thickness of the horizontal beams increased down the towers. Another factor is the sway of the building in the wind. Starting at the first floor the columns were thicker than the ones in the basements according to Waters' diagrams. I thought that did not make any sense because of gravity. But the basement columns only had to deal with gravity they did not have to cope with a few hundred thousand tons swinging back and forth. I don't talk about conspiracy theories because I don't give a damn about any of them. I don't care who did it! But it does not matter if I am insulted by being called a conspiracy theorist because you guys are right but you can't figure out the relevance of mass distribution in a skyscraper or build a model that does what you say. But then you don't have to, because you are right. This crap has been going on for almost 13 years. Three weeks to go for the big ONE THREE. It should have been resolved in less than one year. The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of buildings designed before 1969. The time from the launch of Sputnik to the Moon landing was less than TWELVE YEARS. According to various polls somewhere between 33% and 50% of Americans do not buy the official story too some degree or another. All of the CONFUSION is part of the problem. 50 skyscrapers over 1,000 feet tall constructed since 9/11 and structural engineers can't or won't talk about steel distribution. Look at the shape of the CN Tower in Toronto to get an idea of how it has to be distributed. But remember it is 3 dimensional and you only see 2. Personally I think lots of experts try to pretend what they do is more complicated than it really is. I worked for IBM. They didn't tell us that all of these computers are von Neumann machines, but IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1952. Skyscrapers are a far bigger joke than computers. The Empire State Building was designed without them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNN_tTXABUA psik
Again, I say - perhaps the reason they don't give us that distribution is because it doesn't matter in the end; be it 2% of the steel or 20%, the fact of the matter is that the part of the building that fell was of sufficient mass to overwhelm the integrity of the building and initiate a total collapse. How much it overwhelmed the integrity doesn't matter; what you are doing is like asking a Coroner to qualify how "dead" a corpse is during an autopsy... is he "a little dead", "very dead", "super dead", or just "mostly dead"? Doesn't matter... he's DEAD.
