World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
But they do have limits on what they can do. Defying the laws of physics is something they can not do, no matter how much they want to and no matter how unscrupulous they may be.

They may have taken advantage of what they got but they had no hand in getting what they got.

The buildings came down rather orderly

The buildings came down rather orderly
Yes, gravity is an orderly force. Governments, on the other hand, tend to be disorderly. That's why conspiracies often don't work.

The buildings came down rather orderly
Yes, they all followed gravity. Although after seeing the debris field and where the various pieces hit, I wouldn't call the process "orderly."

the building exterior is 100% intact before it collapses.
so there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it was crushed by a falling building.
the falling building debris is Crack cocaine for engineers to play with.

What?!! What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I don't know what you got wrong. I drew a scale diagram with correct dimensions and angle. It shows that figure you used, to be inaccurate.

That's why I asked for the maths.

Edit: "d" is the drop distance. You are using the wrong formula for this action.

This is what I said in the previous post:
So that leaves the question of how far the center of gravity is up the tilted mass from the pivot point. We are talking about the top 27 stories of a 110 story skyscraper with mostly 12 foot stories. 324 feet. Actually the mechanical floors werE taller but let's ignore that.

324 * 0.374 = 121 feet

So the top of a structure 200 feet wide could deviate 121 feet from its design position.

That 324 is what Greening calls 'h' in his first picture. So the 121 is how far the top moves horizontally relative to the bottom. How much the center of gravity moved cannot be determined because we do not know where it is. The Mechanical floor and the hat truss should have moved it upwards relative to the geometrc center. But until we know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level it cannot be determined.

So 9/11 is scientific nonsense until the relevant data is supplied. So why do people BELIEVE anything without asking for information so obvious?

How much the center of gravity moved cannot be determined because we do not know where it is.... But until we know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level it cannot be determined.
Not that I want to lend any credence to such a conspiracy theory but, are you talking about the horizontal location of the CoG?
I think we can assume that weight is horizontally distributed equally. You don't wanna be making a building where one side is significantly stronger, better braced, or more full of significantly heavier equipment than the other.

Unless you're talking about vertical location - in which case - carry on.

That 324 is what Greening calls 'h' in his first picture. So the 121 is how far the top moves horizontally relative to the bottom. How much the center of gravity moved cannot be determined because we do not know where it is.

I actually had to reread this several times before your claim actually sunk in. This is a simple trigonometry problem. The drop for 22 degrees and 200 feet width is 81 feet. You don't put in the height to work out the drop!

From post #47, the COG moves roughly 60% from its central position.

The Mechanical floor and the hat truss should have moved it upwards relative to the geometrc center. But until we know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level it cannot be determined.

"The hat truss provided additional connections among the core columns and between the core and perimeter columns, providing additional means for load redistribution."

So 9/11 is scientific nonsense until the relevant data is supplied.

You didn't even get a basic trigonometry problem right. Have you considered that the nonsense bit is your limited understanding? The relative weights of the mechanical floors and the small roof truss for the antenna would make hardly any difference to the COG.

So why do people BELIEVE anything without asking for information so obvious?

The information may be obvious, but you didn't understand it.

I actually had to reread this several times before your claim actually sunk in. This is a simple trigonometry problem. The drop for 22 degrees and 200 feet width is 81 feet. You don't put in the height to work out the drop!

From post #47, the COG moves roughly 60% from its central position.

"The hat truss provided additional connections among the core columns and between the core and perimeter columns, providing additional means for load redistribution."

You didn't even get a basic trigonometry problem right. Have you considered that the nonsense bit is your limited understanding? The relative weights of the mechanical floors and the small roof truss for the antenna would make hardly any difference to the COG.

The information may be obvious, but you didn't understand it.

I was not trying to compute the drop.

Last edited:
You didn't even get a basic trigonometry problem right. Have you considered that the nonsense bit is your limited understanding? The relative weights of the mechanical floors and the small roof truss for the antenna would make hardly any difference to the COG.

How do you know that if you don't know the weight of steel and concrete on each level. I am admitting that I do not know where the center of gravity was and that the top of the tilted portion moved 121 ft horizontally relative to the bottom to the tilted portion and that the NIST admits that the core supported 53% of the weight.

Since the core was rectangular and narrower than the width of the building the CoG would not have to move very far to be beyond the core of the lower stationary portion.

Edit: "d" is the drop distance. You are using the wrong formula for this action.

I do not care about the drop distance. Greening's formula is the same as mine he is just computing a distance perpendicular to the one I am talking about.

All you can do is accuse me of being stupid and therefore accurate data is irrelevant because YOU say so.

I am thoroughly impressed!

the small roof truss for the antenna would make hardly any difference to the COG.

The Hat Truss is "small" because YOU say it is.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

Yeah Right!

How do you know that if you don't know the weight of steel and concrete on each level. I am admitting that I do not know where the center of gravity was and that the top of the tilted portion moved 121 ft horizontally relative to the bottom to the tilted portion and that the NIST admits that the core supported 53% of the weight.

The core is smack bang through the centre. The truss sits on top of it, overall if you spread that weight out, it is less than one floor and has none of the concrete reinforcement, office equipment, furniture, fire cladding and all sorts of other weight extras.

Since the core was rectangular and narrower than the width of the building the CoG would not have to move very far to be beyond the core of the lower stationary portion.

But that is not even accurate speculation. You suggest that the support structure largely made of steel, represents the entire weight of each relative floor. You do realise it makes up what looks like 30% of the overall floor? The exterior walls alone amounted to 30% of the downward force of the building.

I do not care about the drop distance. Greening's formula is the same as mine he is just computing a distance perpendicular to the one I am talking about.

You aren't making any sense. You used the wrong formula for the redistribution of COG. The equation you made shows the drop, not where the new COG is. That cannot be computed from a single formula - it needs a purpose built one that takes in the shape, weight, distribution and sizes.

All you can do is accuse me of being stupid and therefore accurate data is irrelevant because YOU say so.

Well no. I don't accuse you of anything so terse. You are just mistaken, your equation simply shows the drop.

I am thoroughly impressed!

Stop waving your arms about. You aren't the font of all knowledge. I learn from other people, things I don't know and show other people things I do know.

The truss is not a significant weight, shape or size to alter the COG.

Yes, gravity is an orderly force. Governments, on the other hand, tend to be disorderly. That's why conspiracies often don't work.
The conspiracy did not "work", since many are hip to it already.

Firefighters even claim they saw bombs there. Also curious, is that the same man owned all 3 buildings which collapsed. The insurance payment's he'd receive would more than cover the cost of any moral guilt he might face from the situation.

When I think of society, I think more in terms of "Gotham City", and less like "Anne of Green Gables".

When someone speaks to me on TV, my first instinct is, "What is this guy trying to dupe me with, and what is he trying to sell me. Is his product going to benefit me at all, or just his tribe." In which case, 9/11, is something they try to sell me, to give them an excuse to spy on me and restrict my rights. Once it becomes clear that it is something they are trying to sell me, the motives become obvious.

Firefighters even claim they saw bombs there.
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
Also curious, is that the same man owned all 3 buildings which collapsed. The insurance payment's he'd receive would more than cover the cost of any moral guilt he might face from the situation.
What about the 2000 consecutive life sentences?
When someone speaks to me on TV, my first instinct is, "What is this guy trying to dupe me with, and what is he trying to sell me. Is his product going to benefit me at all, or just his tribe."
Why don't you use that same instinct when some anonymous goober on the Internet tries to sell you a conspiracy theory?

Firefighters even claim they saw bombs there.
No they didn't.
Also curious, is that the same man owned all 3 buildings which collapsed.
Not that curious. If my house burned down and took my shed with it, it would not be "curious" that I owned both. Since they are right next to each other.
When someone speaks to me on TV, my first instinct is, "What is this guy trying to dupe me with, and what is he trying to sell me. Is his product going to benefit me at all, or just his tribe."
If only you would apply that sort of critical thinking to the latest conspiracy theory you blindly follow.

The truss is not a significant weight, shape or size to alter the COG.

The modular floors outside the core had concrete slabs of 600 tons. The steel pans and trusses that held slab totaled 125 tons.

About this trivial sine problem, if we had a 10 foot rod tilted 22 degrees from vertical, how would you compute how far horizontally the top was from the bottom?

The modular floors outside the core had concrete slabs of 600 tons. The steel pans and trusses that held slab totaled 125 tons.

About this trivial sine problem, if we had a 10 foot rod tilted 22 degrees from vertical, how would you compute how far horizontally the top was from the bottom?
10ft x Sin 22deg, obviously. Approx 3.74ft.

Oh good grief, can we let this foolishness die already? This horse isn't just beaten - it's already been turned into glue and used to paste macaroni onto kids art projects!

10ft x Sin 22deg, obviously. Approx 3.74ft.

Exactly, so the top of the tilted portion of the South Tower had to move horizontally by the height of the tilted portion times Sin 22deg. So we need to know how far up the center of gravity was to determine how far it moved horizontally.

Status
Not open for further replies.