World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Physics my friend is far from what you talk about and so far has been invalidated by many over around 23 pages...and that's just here, a remote forum open to all to spew their nonsensical conspiracies when the world has ignored them for their ignorance and stupidity.

But the airliner and fire did produce the known effects, and of course if you had sufficient intestinal fortitude, you would do as others suggested and build your own scale model to verify your own conspiracy nonsense.
Obviously you don't like being labeled a conspiracy pusher? Facts are if you lay down with dogs, You'll wake up with fleas.

The only holes are in your head and the nonsense you spew.

Because I don't hold to unsupported, fanatical conspiracy nonsense similar to the tripe you are trying to push.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am so impressed!

You can throw around the word "conspiracy" but can ignore the idiotic error by Frank Greening of dividing the mass of one of the towers by 110 even though 6 of the heaviest levels were underground.

Pages? The 10,000 of the NCSTAR1 Report cannot even specify the amount of concrete in the towers. LOL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From The Physics Factbook, readily available on Google:

"A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (500,000 tons)."

Also lists five other sources for weight of the towers.

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

"No one knows the amount of concrete in the towers" LOL!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say no one knows, I said the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report didn't have it. That makes sense to you? What kind of authority would not have that information?

But what sense does the total make without the distribution? How much steel was on level 1? How much on level 100? Great scientific analysis after almost NINETEEN YEARS. It was only 12 years from Sputnik to Tranquility Base. American engineers should be very proud.

 

Ha! You said you put me on ignore, but apparently you are as honest about that as with anything else.

Yes, it makes sense to me that a 10,000 page report didn't have every bit of reference material that they used copied into it. If they had done that, it would have been 100,000 pages.

They did have the information, of course.

Yep. We are waiting for you to produce it. How hard can it be? Why are you withholding this information, unless you know that it will disprove your ridiculous claims?

 

No matter who planned the attacks to those towers and if there were commercial airplanes or a different kind of airplanes.

Regardless if the attackers were foreign people or a government set up. the point is that no one planned the falling of the towers.

The falling of the towers got by surprise to everyone who was involved in those attacks.

 

50 yrs ago MIT students disrupted an SF convention because of poor physics in a science fiction book.
MIT - Ringworld
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2010/jul/02/larry-niven-ringworld
But apparently they can accept the straight down collapse of 1360 ft skyscrapers without steel & concrete distribution data.
Great school!

 

Correct on all counts.

 

Of course that assumes airliner impacts and fire could do it.

Don't skyscraper designers have to figure out how steel and concrete must be distributed up the structure? Where is that distribution data?

 

Come to the meetings.
No building was ever designed to withstand an impact from a commercial airliner loaded with fuel.

 

I never said it was.

Skyscrapers must be designed to deal with wind. It was supposed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind.

But how did the North Tower come straight down in less than 20 seconds? Falling mass accelerated stationary while simultaneously breaking supports and the whole thing came down in less than 20 seconds.

[Of course we can quibble about the spires but the floors and perimeter columns had to be gone to see what was left of the core.]

Loaded with fuel? 10,000 gal when the plane could hold 24,000.

 

So you have the answer how much was the sway?

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/28/science/q-a-017717.html

This link might help

But please please pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top

GO AWAY

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Can't read link don't have NYT subscription.

 

Yep. That is a huge amount of potential (and then kinetic) energy. Once the first floor went, the remaining floors offered almost zero resistance to the pile driver that the upper floors had become.

 

Why yes, yes it is.

 

Courtesy of yours truly and the magic of cut and paste

Q.

Do skyscrapers sway in the wind? If so, how much do the World Trade Center buildings in Manhattan sway? What keeps the buildings from crumbling?

A.

In a really strong wind, the engineers of the World Trade Center say, the buildings may sway back and forth up to 12 inches at the top (110 stories); but the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the buildings, also says no one inside would be likely to notice the movement, except perhaps for some creaking from the structure. However, people who attended a cocktail party on the top of 1 World Trade Center in a violent windstorm said the sway was quite noticeable, though not unpleasant; one described it as ''like a very gently rocking boat.'' As for crumbling, the towers are held up by a steel framework that is elastic enough to take the bending without damage.

Are we done

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK then.

What does this have to do with anything?

Gravity.

This is basic stuff. Why don't you bone up on some physics, or this will take forever.

I didn't say it was 'full'. What was that about quibbling?


This is getting arduous. "I don't understand how this happened" is not tantamount to "This did not happen." You've got no case here, just things you don't know.

 

Tell the NIST.

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report in 2007 and burned it to DVD.

The NIST says the towers were designed to away 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph. I am not aware of there ever being 150 mph winds in NYC so I do not know if the buildings met that spec.

 

Wind is a shear force on skyscrapers. The airplanes were also. The difference was concentration. The NIST says the South Tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact.

Gravity eliminates the Conservation of Momentum and magically provides energy to bend steel and crack concrete?

And no physical or virtual models in 20 years. Curious that. No wait, how can models be made without steel distribution. What were the variations in weights and quantities of the wheatchexs?

 

This is like pulling teeth. I'm not going to make your case for you.