Which, if anything, SHOULD show that the quantity of concrete doesn't really matter...
Interesting 9/11 video
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
Which, if anything, SHOULD show that the quantity of concrete doesn't really matter...
you don't see it because you don't want to.
i'll bet you a million to one that these perimeter butt joints are the cause of the failures of 1&2.
don't you get it?
butt joints are one of the weakest known to engineering.
the arrangement of these joints around the perimeter basically allowed the building to "unzip" itself.
yes, it's really that simple.
This is actually insulting on the one hand, I'm fairly sure I didn't predict it wouldn't change my mind, I'm fairly sure that the most I have said is that it wouldn't change the questions I asked you. If you believe otherwise quote me and link to the post.
Actually, it has been addressed, it's implicit in a subsequent post of mine - specifically Post 13.
I not only addressed you post 3, but I addressed your question as well.
And apparently you managed to completely miss the point I was making there.
This is what happens when you cherry-pick. Here's what I actually said:
No need to guess, only a need to retain context.
On the one hand, that was supposed to read "Who executed the conspiracy" I'm not quite sure what happened there.
On the other hand you've twisted my words by removing them from their context (more cherry-picking, I'm beginning to think that engaging in fallacies is the only way you know how to hold a discussion).
If Hypothesis A is "The American government executed the conspiracy" and Hypothesis B is "A group of muslim extremists executed the conspiracy" where "The Conspiracy" is the events of 9/11 then asking "Who executed the conspiracy" or "which hypothesis is correct" is, in the context of the discussion, the same thing as asking "Who is responsible."
Because the post in question pretty much fits the text-book definitions of trolling.
Not rhetorical. You like to harp on a lot about how closed minded I am, and yet you yourself are unable to say what level of evidence it would take to convince you that the commonly held explanation for the events of 9/11 is the correct one.
I haven't backed down from anything, and we didn't really discuss anything.
The presenters argument is based on a handfull of photos that show no wreckage from a particular angle. He completely neglects to account for forshortening, persepective, and topography.
Never underestimate the importance of persepctive and foreshortening in photography. Besides, I have presented at least as many photos of wreckage on the lawn as he has of photos of a lawn without wreckage.
Why are you dismissing or ignoring this photo, for example:
I think the video is strangely silent on how much wreckage there ahould have been.
He questions the lack of wreckage in this photo:
Or one similar to it without accounting for factors like the fire trucks being parked on a hill
But even in that photo, if it was a cruise missile that hit the pentagon, what cause the damage on the right hand side of that photo? What started those fires? For that matter, what knocked over the spools that the presenter used for reference points or knocked over and/or damaged the lamp posts (not visible in this photo) and damaged the rood of the shed?
We've discussed this. Brilliant waffling on your part there.
Yeah, I think that several apologies on your part might restore some sciforums karmic balance...
Actually, I wasn't confused. I knew you were talking to Russ, the point is still valid, you were still referring to me, and you're still playing dodgeball with it. I only ever said that what I had seen of the video was crap.
At no time have I quantified or qualified how many questions I have asked you, I have simply pointed out that there were questions, and arguments that in spite of all your huffing and puffing remained relevant and unaddressed.
This an adhominem. Worse than that is there is no reasonable grounds on which you can make this assertion. The most that you can reasonably infer from this discussion is that I found the video in question unconvincing and/or inaccurate.
Here's the thing.
Post 31 I posted three photographs of wreckage, and three links discussing the debris field, misperceptions in relation to the debris field, and comparing some of the debris to the aircraft that is alleged to have hit the pentagon. In response to Russ's Post #42 you made Post #46 a full what is it, 15 hours after I made Post 31? Six minutes later I replied, and a full six minutes after that Russ replied with the post in question.
Why is this important? Well, 15 hours before the post in question, when I made post 31, I posted this link: ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left No Aircraft Debris'. If you follow that link you will find the fourth section which is titled "Inside or Outside the Building". That section links to the page which you are saying you hadn't had the opportunity to look at yet. So what then. You claim to have watched the video. You know that the hole size is an issue raised in the video. You question Russ about it, but apparently you're not curiouse enough to click on link on a page which you have had at your disposal for 15 hours, which is in a section that posits a much larger hole than that claimed by the video in the OP?
No, I have called you a whiner a liar and a troll when you have whined lied and trolled. These are independent of anything you have said about me watching the film.
So you're persecuting a grudge against me. Got it, I'll keep that in mind for the future.
Oh what rot:
Source
Source
I said I would likely watch it when I had the time and was under less stress, and then two days later, when I got to my weekend and got my work out of the way, I watched it... This has nothing to do with anything you have said or done and it would likely have worked out the same way had we not had any interaction at all on the matter. In short, your opinion that people should watch it in it's entirety was (and is) wholy irrelevant to my decision to watch
You're claiming god-hood now? You claim to know my mind before I know it myslef? Lemme know how that telepathy thing works out for you.
At this stage in the game why would I waste my time? Having said that, we both know that's not true don't we. I reiterated that the film did not change my opinion regarding my points about the conservation of momentum and so on...
You demonstrably never were.
And, as it happens I was right. That's what's really burning you here isn't it Arne. That's what's got you so mad. Is the fact that I can genuinely put my hand on my heart and honestly say that I have heard everything in that video before, and seen the counterarguments to it - you know, this page is four years old, and this page is seven years old. The youtube video in the OP is three years old (some to think of it, I may even have watched it in a previous discussion on another forum). If the French team he's talking about is the one that I think he's talking about (Thierry Meyssan) then that was published in 2002. Here's a
page discussing at least some of the claims made in Meyssan's 2003 book Pentagate (seriously, what a lame name).
Just to prove my point further here's a page discussing the whole 'pod plane' thing that even explicitly mentions the "In plane sight" documentary: ERROR: 'A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane'.
Last modified 2012.
Now, are we done here are you going to keep making yourself look like an ass?
I'm actually passionatly curious, it's one of the reasons I got into science in the first place - I was driven by my curiosity.
Sometimes my sense of curiosity overwhelms my better judgement. Sometimes that pays off - there have been youtube videos that I have watched inspite of my expecting them to be woo-woo BS that have actually turned out to be informative and accurate.
Unfortunately most people seem to equate curisoity with gullibility and critical thinking with being judgemental and closed minded - as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.
Oh what a tangled temperature web we weave.
Now this is really interesting. How can an "Open Air" fire be Adiabatic? How can an Adiabatic fire heat steel external to itself?
Wikipedia got really interesting in May of 2014. Before then "Open Air" jet fuel fires weren't "adiabatic" and the temperature was only 599 °F.
Go back and trace the history of this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
Notice it says "Open air" but not "Adiabatic" with that 599 degrees.
I have looked at this page plenty of times but apparently not since May. I knew the previous open air temperature was less than 1,000 deg Fahr. So who is fiddling the Wiki?
The footnote number changed from 7 to 9 in August of 1013, then to 10 in Dec of 2013, and then to 11 in April of 2014 but the temperature remained the same. But in May the word "Adiabatic" came in and the temperature made a big jump.
How many people know what ADIABATIC means? I don't remember using the term since college chemistry.
psik
You can bet all you want but how could they make the top of the south tower tilt 25 degrees in 5 seconds according to Frank Greening? What happened to the south tower was significantly different from the north. But they had the same but joints.
You seem to think claiming is as good as proving. But apparently you can't make a self supporting model completely collapse out of any material using any kind of joints. I have not made any constraints on the model but that it support its own weight with an even or bottom heavy distribution and that the top 15% by height destroy the intact portion below. Use any kind of joints you want.
My model supported its own weight for 3 days. I originally intended a week but I got impatient. Two paper loops did collapse after one night though and I had to make them stronger. So most of the loops lasted 4 days.
You can BELIEVE whatever you want about the butt joints. What did the NIST say about them?
Like it is just me:
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=260283&postcount=1
LOL
psik
Did the steel have to hold up the concrete or not?
So did the quantity of concrete have to affect the quantity of steel or not?
Your logic is brilliant! ROFLMAO
psik
None of that matters, since I didn't get the open-air burn temperature from Wikipedia... though if you actually bothered to follow the link they have in that very article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic
That said- it would appear the site I did pull the number from sourced Wikipedia. Digging into it further, it is important to note - Jet A-1, as with anything else, has varying heat output depending on how it is burning and its physical qualities at the time, such as if it is liquid or vapor, mixture with oxygen and atmospheric gasses, etc. A proper chemist could probably give you, to within a reasonable margin of error, the actual temperature at which Jet A-1, after being turned into an aerosol via an explosion and mixed with the atmosphere (read, no forced oxygen/air injection) would burn.
That said:
Thomas W. Eagar said:
More brilliant waffling... as well as a typical and intentional attempt to completely miss the point.
Are you claiming there is a correlative relationship between the quantity of steel and the quantity of concrete on each level then? If so - what would this have to do with the collapse? We are talking about a design by which each floor transfers its own weight to the central and exterior columns via the butt joints, and the columns carry this weight to the foundation. You start stacking the weight of eight, nine, or ten floors onto a single floor, and you are greatly overloading said joints. Factor in metal fatigue from uneven heating/cooling as well as loss of overall strength from the heat of the fires, plus a section in which there were no connections because of the damage from the impact...
Seems like pretty simple stuff to me... it's no wonder the damn thing fell.
Adiabatic means a fire is not transferring heat to external masses. How can a fire heat steel if it is not doing that? So if it is not heating steel how is it relevant to a 9/11 discussion.
But before May the temperature was only 600 deg F. You can check the history yourself, I provided the dates.
Does the NIST report ever use the word "adiabatic"?
Yeah, it looks like they used it 12 times in 10,000 pages.
psik
psikeyhackr
I see you've reset again to full truther BS. Don't you ever learn anything?
The NIST report contains the information, so this oft repeated statement of yours is still a complete lie.
Concrete-there was no STRUCTURAL concrete above ground level outside of the three equipment floors. The floors were 4 inches of lightweight concrete(110 lbs per cubic foot)poured into sheet metal pans. The cores had normal weight concrete(160 lbs/ft^3)poured into pans 6 inches deep where elevator shafts did not exist(about 50% of that area). Each floor had one acre of area, you could do the math and determine the weight of each floor's concrete(they were all exactly the same except for machinery floors). That would give you the exact distribution of all the concrete in the towers(above ground, which is the relevant area). This information is in the NIST report.
Butt joints-they work fine in the as-constructed configuration but fail easily if acted on by forces sideways to normal. Therefore the collapsing buildings did not have to overcome the structural strength of the steel, they just had to overcome the structural strength of the weak butt joints. A column that is intact holds massive weights, a column disconnected at it's butt joints provides zero structural strength.
Cantilevered truss floors-each floor held up only it's own contents, the load being transferred at the edges to the structural steel. The condition of one floor had no effect on the floor above, nor the floor below, nor was any weight transferred between floors until they collapsed on top of the floor below. In addition catarenary forces of sagging floors pulled structural steel out of alignment vertically, reducing it's load carrying ability and resistance to collapse, add in heat that caused the steel to lose half it's structural strength and damage caused by impact and you have your cause of collapse. "Ejected" steel is just the outer frames falling apart like banana peels in long strips.
But not the same impact point, degree of asymmetry or type and position of the damage and fires. 2 was hit lower and more off center and it's fires concentrated into one corner leading to different times and sequences of collapse initiation. Once initiated, however, the collapses proceeded in the same fashion, which tells you the butt joints were failing in the same way, and that the structures reacted the same.
Grumpy
I see you've reset again to full truther BS. Don't you ever learn anything?
The NIST report contains the information, so this oft repeated statement of yours is still a complete lie.
Concrete-there was no STRUCTURAL concrete above ground level outside of the three equipment floors. The floors were 4 inches of lightweight concrete(110 lbs per cubic foot)poured into sheet metal pans. The cores had normal weight concrete(160 lbs/ft^3)poured into pans 6 inches deep where elevator shafts did not exist(about 50% of that area). Each floor had one acre of area, you could do the math and determine the weight of each floor's concrete(they were all exactly the same except for machinery floors). That would give you the exact distribution of all the concrete in the towers(above ground, which is the relevant area). This information is in the NIST report.
Butt joints-they work fine in the as-constructed configuration but fail easily if acted on by forces sideways to normal. Therefore the collapsing buildings did not have to overcome the structural strength of the steel, they just had to overcome the structural strength of the weak butt joints. A column that is intact holds massive weights, a column disconnected at it's butt joints provides zero structural strength.
Cantilevered truss floors-each floor held up only it's own contents, the load being transferred at the edges to the structural steel. The condition of one floor had no effect on the floor above, nor the floor below, nor was any weight transferred between floors until they collapsed on top of the floor below. In addition catarenary forces of sagging floors pulled structural steel out of alignment vertically, reducing it's load carrying ability and resistance to collapse, add in heat that caused the steel to lose half it's structural strength and damage caused by impact and you have your cause of collapse. "Ejected" steel is just the outer frames falling apart like banana peels in long strips.
But not the same impact point, degree of asymmetry or type and position of the damage and fires. 2 was hit lower and more off center and it's fires concentrated into one corner leading to different times and sequences of collapse initiation. Once initiated, however, the collapses proceeded in the same fashion, which tells you the butt joints were failing in the same way, and that the structures reacted the same.
Grumpy
But it would be so easy to PROVE that it is a complete lie.
All you have to do it tell us the quantity of concrete and specify where it is in the NIST report. Then everyone could go there and check it.
So why haven't you done it?
But then no one has done that since I have been saying it which has been at least SIX YEARS.
psik
No, that is not what I said. But there has to be a correlative relationship between the amount of steel on each level below 105 and the amount of concrete on all of the levels above them because the steel on each level must support everything above, including the concrete. So ultimately it comes down to needing to know the amount of steel and concrete on every level.
psik
False, and you know it is. Each floor supported ONLY its own weight, not the weight of the above floors. This is by design of the building.
I said LEVEL not FLOOR.
That means the 12 foot height of columns in the core and on the perimeter.
psik
I wasn't talking about trivial variations in concrete consistency. The sizes of the columns in the core changed from the 1st level to the top of the building. You said the "tube-core" was "reinforced concrete and steel". So how much did the amount of concrete change with the steel?
ROFL You can post a silly picture of a single truss showing two clips like that is important but you can't find the number of clips. I have never seen the number specified. I have computed the total should be about 200 with 66 around the core. So how could they all give way simultaneously for a floor to fall and remain horizontal?
The blue prints don't even show the horizontal beams in the core even though the urinals are there.
psik
They don't give way simultaneously... I can only assume at this point you are being willfully and intentionally dishonest, because NOBODY could POSSIBLY be that stupid.
Obviously the ones at the site of impact were pretty well obliterated, and ones nearby were damaged/knocked out of alignment. Others a bit further from that were subjected to intense heat from the fires, causing them to weaken. Additionally, structural steel members that sat upon these joints were expanding at irregular rates due to uneven heating, causing still more to become off-centered or even completely unattached.
Combine all of that together, and as the metal fatigued and weakened from the fires and the strain of holding up additional load from the missing members... and eventually, the ones nearest the site of impact gave way, and it was a chain-reaction from there, as the next set of joints in line received the additional load, exceeded their capacity to hold it, and failed. Eventually, enough failed that the entire floor collapsed.
You can assume whatever you want.
You can't tell us how many connections there were. At least I provided an approximation.
But if they didn't give way simultaneously then what would happen? Wouldn't the floor have to tilt?
psik
No, not any substantial amount. It wouldn't have time - they don't give way simultaneously, but in very rapid succession; the floor might tip a few degrees, but by that point the remaining connections have failed and the entire thing is at the mercy of gravity.
psikeyhackr
You've been shown the info several times over the years, it hasn't changed your lying habits yet, so it is a complete waste of my time. You can lead a Jackass to water, but I could care less if you remain thirsty.
Kittamaru
Unfortunately, they can. We call them "Troothers". And they are both, willfully and intentionally.
Grumpy
You've been shown the info several times over the years, it hasn't changed your lying habits yet, so it is a complete waste of my time. You can lead a Jackass to water, but I could care less if you remain thirsty.
Kittamaru
Unfortunately, they can. We call them "Troothers". And they are both, willfully and intentionally.
Grumpy
Yes, i (am) know a lot of engineers so i know pretty well how they tend to think. But OK, so what's your hypothesis for why you are wrong?