# 9/11 was an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:

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.

psik

That question makes no sense.

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. 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?

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

...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

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.

Last edited:
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

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

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. 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://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.

Status
Not open for further replies.