Physics experts ?

[Crazytimes]

I was posed this question by a truther who wont let go of the nano thermite claim.

Explain how the rotational inertia in the following photo STOPPED. You must obey the laws of physics.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/docs/wtc2_tilt_plannorth.png

[rwguinn]

I was posed this question by a truther who wont let go of the nano thermite claim.

Explain how the rotational inertia in the following photo STOPPED. You must obey the laws of physics.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/docs/wtc2_tilt_plannorth.png
F=M*A
Rotational inertia is negated when the edge of the intact, rotating block comes in contact with the non-rotating, still standing portion of the building below, which applies a force in opposition to that inertia.

[Dave Rogers]

This is an argument that betrays lack of thought, or reliance on the "anything unexpected proves an inside job" approach.

The standard truther argument is that the lower structure was being destroyed by other means and thus presented no resistance to the fall of the upper block. If this were the case, there could be no change in the angular momentum of the upper block once its fall had commenced. Any change in angular momentum of the falling block indicates that it has been acted on by an external moment; in other words, it must have experienced an off-centre force of some sort. The obvious candidate for this is that the lower edge is collapsing columns in the lower block at a greater rate than the upper edge, and thus the resistance to its fall is greater. This will result in a reduction in angular momentum of the upper block. However, this argument relies on there being significant resistance to the collapse from the structure of the lower block, which is what truthers are trying to disprove.

So the simple answer is that the rotation slows because of resistance from the lower structure, demonstrating that the lower structure was not being destroyed by explosives ahead of the fall of the upper block.

Dave

[WildCat]

I was posed this question by a truther who wont let go of the nano thermite claim.

Explain how the rotational inertia in the following photo STOPPED. You must obey the laws of physics.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/docs/wtc2_tilt_plannorth.png
Just out of curiosity, how does he explain this using nano thermite?

[Crazytimes]

Just out of curiosity, how does he explain this using nano thermite?

I dont know. I tried to get him to post here but he wont. I will ask him and see if he answers.

[Crazytimes]

F=M*A
Rotational inertia is negated when the edge of the intact, rotating block comes in contact with the non-rotating, still standing portion of the building below, which applies a force in opposition to that inertia.

And just in case he asks, do you have a physics background ?

[ktesibios]

This question is addressed in forum member RMackey's paper On Debunking 9/11 Debunking (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)(see page 259 of the pdf) and also in Bazant & Zhou's Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf).

Mackey's treatment is easier to understand, as the math involved is relatively simple trigonometry. Simply put, for the upper block to topple over in the way many truthers claim that it should have, the center of mass of the block would have to be displaced outside the tower's outline (absent a horizontally applied force large enough to push it off sideways), and the location of the point about which it is hinging makes this geometrically impossible.

[Dave Rogers]

And just in case he asks, do you have a physics background ?

In case it helps, I have a doctorate in physics and over 20 years experience as a professional physicist.

Dave

[Crazytimes]

In case it helps, I have a doctorate in physics and over 20 years experience as a professional physicist.

Dave

Ok, it should help. Although you might work for the government. :jaw-dropp

[Crazytimes]

Ughh....his response.

1. Gravity and fires do not provide enough energy input for any of the three buildings to collapse in the fashion the did.

2. There is not enough energy input to pulverize concrete to dust, heat the piles so the burned for months, heat metals to red hot and probably molten, break steel beams,

3. There is not enough energy availble to fling 60 ton beams hundreds of yards, propel dust clouds for miles, shake the EARTH (see: LDEO) and ON and ON.

[Crazytimes]

And another response when I directed him to the Rmacky PDF-

Fail... they do not take into account that the fulcrum has a downward vector. (it is moving or, if you watch the video... disappearing/exploding).

This is not a seesaw as the weight of the block is not resting on the fulcrum.

[CurtC]

So you asked him how nanothermite would explain the rotation of the upper block stopping on its way down, and he rattled off this unrelated BS about not enough energy?

Be a bulldog - don't let him change the subject. Don't move on to a different point until he concedes the point you two were already discussing.

[Crazytimes]

So you asked him how nanothermite would explain the rotation of the upper block stopping on its way down, and he rattled off this unrelated BS about not enough energy?

Be a bulldog - don't let him change the subject. Don't move on to a different point until he concedes the point you two were already discussing.

He actually hasn't addressed that yet. I tried to get him to come post here but he wont.

Look at this thread and ship to the last page.

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/wells-hall-off-topic-board/266422-tofficial-wtc7-conspiracy-thread-8.html#post5348985

He has now added this to the Rmackey PDF. I will put his posts in red to easier identify.

Fail... they do not take into account that the fulcrum has a downward vector. (it is moving or, if you watch the video... disappearing/exploding).

They even say the block is moving downward but do not accout for the fact that if it is the fulcrum HAS TO BE MOVING TOO defeating the whole point of their non-point.

..as a matter of fact.. there is no "hinge"... the block is totally detached. There is no stationary fulcrum. Nice how they show rotational vector for the block but no vector for the fulcrum.

Papers like that are designed to overwhelm non-engineers with equations, etc but they always have a severe, fundamental flaw that makes them laughable if you just look.

Maybe a better question is... how did that whole block "disappear"? Should it not have landed at least partially intact? It just disintegrates in the videos...

Furthermore, they are using SOLID BLOCKS... you must remember that the WTC towers were not solid like a block of wood... they were essentially a mesh of beams and trusses, thus the "hinge" or filcrum would not have any sort of solid contact once the beams moved even a bit out of alignment.

The oversimplifed physics of page whatever look like something a high school student produced.

[R.Mackey]

The explanation in my paper is simplified so that people like your opponent can understand it. What he is complaining about is, in fact, a feature.

The clearest explanation contained in my whitepaper is actually on Page 105:

The argument from conservation of angular momentum is similarly flawed. Dr. Griffin and Mr. Hoffman both assume that conservation of angular momentum guarantees that the upper block would continue spinning at the same rate. But this is only true if the upper block does not come in contact with the lower structure – angular momentum is only conserved so long as there are no external forces affecting the mass off-center. Since the upper block tilts, it first comes in contact with the lower structure at the down-tilted corner. Impact here, off-center, provides opposite angular momentum. Similarly, as it falls a bit further, contact at the up-tilted corner will add angular momentum. This will tend to rock the upper block back and forth as it settles through each floor. However, if the block continues to rotate, the down-tilted corner will fall farther than the up-tilted corner, and experience more and larger impacts, which work against rotation. Because of this geometry, the rotation is a self-regulating process to some extent.

What we expect, therefore, is that the upper block will slow in its rotational rate, but probably not all the way to zero. The impacts of floors below adding to and subtracting from this rate are going to be somewhat random and partially average out. This is, in fact, what is seen in the video – the upper block does rotate a bit further before it disappears from view.

Source (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)

And for the record, I have a B.A. in Physics among my other degrees, not that it should matter.

[Crazytimes]

Another of his responses to post #2 and #3



Fail... "Rotational inertia is negated when the edge of the intact, rotating block comes in contact with the non-rotating, still standing portion of the building below,"

IT was in contact the whole time. How was a GAP created for it to begin to rotate then come BACK into contact with the intact structure? It was in contact the whole time. How does it "come free", fall and come back into contact? How did all of the core and perimiter columns BREAK or bend allowing this rotation and fall (apparently into free space)?

The rest is just a longwinded nswer based on a flawed premise... this guy is not what he claims to be or is very bad at what he does.

[Crazytimes]

The explanation in my paper is simplified so that people like your opponent can understand it. What he is complaining about is, in fact, a feature.

The clearest explanation contained in my whitepaper is actually on Page 105:



Source (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)

And for the record, I have a B.A. in Physics among my other degrees, not that it should matter.

His response -

Some of what he says here is true but is still based on a giant FLAW.

They assume the upper block broke free, rotated, fell and came back into contact with the intact structure.

This is not possible.

I do not agree with Griffin and Hoffman that it should have just continued to spin like a hinged lid and fallen in the street but your guys flaws are just as bad as theirs.

[R.Mackey]

This isn't what I said at all. I clearly explain the source of the rotation, which occurs while the upper portion is still partially fixed by the lower structure -- the "hinge" that NIST refers to of core columns that survived slightly longer than others.

The model I present, again, is simplified, and contact between upper and lower blocks is complicated. But that does not make my explanation wrong, and your opponent has yet to articulate an alternative.

[Crazytimes]

Another one of his responses. He is getting frustrated.

What created the ****ing gap to allow the rotation THEN allow it to come BACK into contact with the structure below?

****ing magic? Explosives?

He just says "the block breaks free, starts to rotate and HITS the intact structure bleow stooping the rotation"

How the **** does the block just "break free", "begin to rotate", ACCELERATE DOWN and HIT the intact building below?

[R.Mackey]

He's getting frustrated because he knows he's wrong at this point.

There is no gap. The gaps I refer to in my model are a simplification that reflects the fact that most of the mass, and therefore most of the inertia (which is what matters), is contained in the floors rather than the open space between them. To first order, the structure can be thought of as a series of flat objects spaced about 3 meters apart.

Should be pretty simple to understand.

[240-185]

According to Gravy's truther answer chart, you've reached the "Truther cries" part, and you should put him on ignore, then go to beach :D

[rwguinn]

Another of his responses to post #2 and #3



Fail... "Rotational inertia is negated when the edge of the intact, rotating block comes in contact with the non-rotating, still standing portion of the building below,"

IT was in contact the whole time. How was a GAP created for it to begin to rotate then come BACK into contact with the intact structure? It was in contact the whole time. How does it "come free", fall and come back into contact? How did all of the core and perimiter columns BREAK or bend allowing this rotation and fall (apparently into free space)?

The rest is just a longwinded nswer based on a flawed premise... this guy is not what he claims to be or is very bad at what he does.
If it was in contact all the time, how did the rotation get started?

[nicepants]

Ughh....his response.

1. Gravity and fires do not provide enough energy input for any of the three buildings to collapse in the fashion the did.

2. There is not enough energy input to pulverize concrete to dust, heat the piles so the burned for months, heat metals to red hot and probably molten, break steel beams,

3. There is not enough energy availble to fling 60 ton beams hundreds of yards, propel dust clouds for miles, shake the EARTH (see: LDEO) and ON and ON.

Since he seems to know the numbers, it might be worth asking:

How much energy is provided by the fires & collapse?

How much energy would be required for #1, #2, #3?

My guess is you'll get some vague response. Truthers never seem to understand just how much potential gravitational energy there is in a structure that large.....if they did, they wouldn't be making such ridiculous arguments.

[Crazytimes]

Since he seems to know the numbers, it might be worth asking:

How much energy is provided by the fires & collapse?

How much energy would be required for #1, #2, #3?

My guess is you'll get some vague response. Truthers never seem to understand just how much potential gravitational energy there is in a structure that large.....if they did, they wouldn't be making such ridiculous arguments.


Ha....he just posted

So while I wait for your experts response... Why don't you go ahead and ask him to calculate the amount of energy required to:

- Crush the steel superstructure of the building.
- Pulverize the concrete to a fine powder
- Heat the pile and maintain that heat for months
- Push the cloud of debris for miles
- Shake the earth
- Maintain collapse speed and/or ACCELERATE the collapse.
- Eject huge steel beams hundreds of yards
- A ton of **** I am not thinking of

Then ask him to calculate the mass of the top block, SUBTRACT the mass that does not fall within the footprint multiply by g and come up with th availble energy in a gravity driven collapse.

Ask him to tell the difference in the energy sinks (the list) and the energy input

I just asked him how nano thermite explained any of his questions and he said

"Huge ****ing energy input that can account for all of the above. Gravity simply cannot."

[Seanette]

According to Gravy's truther answer chart, you've reached the "Truther cries" part, and you should put him on ignore, then go to beach :D

Just for reference, where would one find this chart? :D

[240-185]

Just for reference, where would one find this chart? :D

Here it is (http://nyctours.googlepages.com/TrutherResponseFlowChart.pdf)

[R.Mackey]

Just so you know, I disapprove of posting by proxy. If he wants to ask us questions, he needs to sign up here and participate -- although from his verbiage I suspect I know who this is, and if so he was banned from this site. Please respect the Moderators.

However, I have no problem telling you that we've already done all of this. See my whitepaper, Appendix B, for a rough estimate of the gravitational potential and amount absorbed during the fall. See the BLBG paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf) for an estimate that takes into account concrete destruction, loss of material over the sides, and other physical damage mechanisms. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1909303#post1909303) for an estimate of seismic enegy, which you can verify yourself using the MR estimates from LDEO. See here (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt) for an estimate of combustible energy contained in the structures, which is absolutely staggering.

As for "pushing the cloud of debris for miles," I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, because presumably the wind would be the responsible agent... Apart from obvious errors like these, the simple truth is that we have already considered every argument they have made, and accounted for every question they are likely to raise in the future.

[Turbofan]

The total disregard for tower construction, physics and video evidence
is disturbing.

All of your theories fail to include the massive and many core columns
that were still intact (not severed or damaged by aircraft).

Nothing "dropped", or "fell" onto the supporting structure. THis is a gross
misconception. Perimeter and core columns both responsible for holding
the upper floor section.

Now please explain how the top third of the tower 'poofs away' before
the remaining tower desecends. You must account for the core with
your reply.

What is left to destroy about 1000 feet of tower in 10 seconds?

Here are some pics for reference. I can supply the MSM video links
if you all require them. The images are from my server.

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

Here's a simple diagram showing how silly the gravity theory really is:

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Don't forget, the lower sections of the tower were more robust.

Looking forward to your reply (especially R. Mackey)

[rwguinn]

Just so you know, I disapprove of posting by proxy. If he wants to ask us questions, he needs to sign up here and participate -- although from his verbiage I suspect I know who this is, and if so he was banned from this site. Please respect the Moderators.

However, I have no problem telling you that we've already done all of this. See my whitepaper, Appendix B, for a rough estimate of the gravitational potential and amount absorbed during the fall. See the BLBG paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf) for an estimate that takes into account concrete destruction, loss of material over the sides, and other physical damage mechanisms. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1909303#post1909303) for an estimate of seismic enegy, which you can verify yourself using the MR estimates from LDEO. See here (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt) for an estimate of combustible energy contained in the structures, which is absolutely staggering.

As for "pushing the cloud of debris for miles," I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, because presumably the wind would be the responsible agent... Apart from obvious errors like these, the simple truth is that we have already considered every argument they have made, and accounted for every question they are likely to raise in the future.
I agree-
I think we have a banned member out there, trying to get an "in". We don't need to enable him any more...This thread should be closed.

[Crazytimes]

Just so you know, I disapprove of posting by proxy. If he wants to ask us questions, he needs to sign up here and participate -- although from his verbiage I suspect I know who this is, and if so he was banned from this site. Please respect the Moderators.

However, I have no problem telling you that we've already done all of this. See my whitepaper, Appendix B, for a rough estimate of the gravitational potential and amount absorbed during the fall. See the BLBG paper (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf) for an estimate that takes into account concrete destruction, loss of material over the sides, and other physical damage mechanisms. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1909303#post1909303) for an estimate of seismic enegy, which you can verify yourself using the MR estimates from LDEO. See here (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt) for an estimate of combustible energy contained in the structures, which is absolutely staggering.

As for "pushing the cloud of debris for miles," I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, because presumably the wind would be the responsible agent... Apart from obvious errors like these, the simple truth is that we have already considered every argument they have made, and accounted for every question they are likely to raise in the future.

Ok, I will stop, thanks Ryan.

I asked him to post here and he will not. I appreciate all the help. He just started getting into a lot of things I knew could be answered quickly here. I tried searching for some of it but didnt know a good way to do so.

[DGM]

Ha....he just posted

So while I wait for your experts response... Why don't you go ahead and ask him to calculate the amount of energy required to:

- Crush the steel superstructure of the building.
- Pulverize the concrete to a fine powder
- Heat the pile and maintain that heat for months
- Push the cloud of debris for miles
- Shake the earth
- Maintain collapse speed and/or ACCELERATE the collapse.
- Eject huge steel beams hundreds of yards
- A ton of **** I am not thinking of

Then ask him to calculate the mass of the top block, SUBTRACT the mass that does not fall within the footprint multiply by g and come up with th availble energy in a gravity driven collapse.

Ask him to tell the difference in the energy sinks (the list) and the energy input

I just asked him how nano thermite explained any of his questions and he said

"Huge ****ing energy input that can account for all of the above. Gravity simply cannot."
Can we assume you told him he already did (along with several others)? Where's this "truthers" numbers to prove him wrong?

[R.Mackey]

The total disregard for tower construction, physics and video evidence
is disturbing.

All of your theories fail to include the massive and many core columns
that were still intact (not severed or damaged by aircraft).

Nothing "dropped", or "fell" onto the supporting structure. THis is a gross
misconception. Perimeter and core columns both responsible for holding
the upper floor section.

Now please explain how the top third of the tower 'poofs away' before
the remaining tower desecends. You must account for the core with
your reply.

Easy. It didn't "poof away," whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. The one disregarding video and physics appears to be you, not us.

What is left to destroy about 1000 feet of tower in 10 seconds?

Gravitational potential energy. See the works of Dr. Bazant, and my whitepaper, as already described above in this thread. After absorbing these treatments, feel free to ask if you have any remaining technical questions.

[Seanette]

Here it is (http://nyctours.googlepages.com/TrutherResponseFlowChart.pdf)

Muchas gracias. Duly saved a copy for reference and amusement.

[beachnut]

...

What is left to destroy about 1000 feet of tower in 10 seconds?

...


The energy stored in each tower due to gravity exceeds 130 TONS of TNT. So you ignore physics and propagate hearsay, fantasy, and lies. Why?

Got physics?

[3bodyproblem]

This is an argument that betrays lack of thought, or reliance on the "anything unexpected proves an inside job" approach.

The standard truther argument is that the lower structure was being destroyed by other means and thus presented no resistance to the fall of the upper block. If this were the case, there could be no change in the angular momentum of the upper block once its fall had commenced. Any change in angular momentum of the falling block indicates that it has been acted on by an external moment; in other words, it must have experienced an off-centre force of some sort. The obvious candidate for this is that the lower edge is collapsing columns in the lower block at a greater rate than the upper edge, and thus the resistance to its fall is greater. This will result in a reduction in angular momentum of the upper block. However, this argument relies on there being significant resistance to the collapse from the structure of the lower block, which is what truthers are trying to disprove.

So the simple answer is that the rotation slows because of resistance from the lower structure, demonstrating that the lower structure was not being destroyed by explosives ahead of the fall of the upper block.

Dave

Well said.

[Crazytimes]

The energy stored in each tower due to gravity exceeds 130 TONS of TNT. So you ignore physics and propagate hearsay, fantasy, and lies. Why?

Got physics?

Out of curiosity, how was that calculated ?

[Turbofan]

It didn't poof away huh?

Where did the top 1/3 of the building go Mr. Mackey?

Notice the red line showing the bottom section of the tower has not
moved, yet 300+ft of tower is missing?

Explain it.

Then explain what is left to 'crush' 1000 feet of structure in ~10 seconds

[R.Mackey]

No, it didn't "poof away." I still don't know what you mean by that. This is the kind of comment I expect from a young child.

There is so much dust in the air that a precise estimate of the falling portion's condition is impossible. However, much of it has collapsed, and thus takes up much less volume than it did when it was intact.

It is this collapsed mass, the huge and growing pile of rubble that is still falling on the lower structure, that causes the lower structure to be crushed.

Frankly, this is so absolutely simple to explain, I cannot help feeling you are not being honest with us.

[Turbofan]

No, it didn't "poof away." I still don't know what you mean by that. This is the kind of comment I expect from a young child.

There is so much dust in the air that a precise estimate of the falling portion's condition is impossible. However, much of it has collapsed, and thus takes up much less volume than it did when it was intact.

Is that right? Do you need a lesson in video analysis? I can clearly see
the top portion of the building and the support structure using the corner
of the buidling where the red line intersects the tower.

Let me simplify this for you. Here is a series of screen captures of the
original media. This is still available in archive for your further inspection.

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg


Frankly, this is so absolutely simple to explain, I cannot help feeling you are not being honest with us.

YOu want honest. Honestly tell me where all this dust appears that
obstructs our view of the top section and support structure.

Explain Mr. Mackey!

[dtugg]

So TF is one of the twoofers that believes the towers should have fell sideways like a tree? Cool. We don't even have to discredit him, he does that all by himself!

[GStan]

Is that right? Do you need a lesson in video analysis? I can clearly see
the top portion of the building and the support structure using the corner
of the buidling where the red line intersects the tower.

Let me simplify this for you. Here is a series of screen captures of the
original media. This is still available in archive for your further inspection.

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg




YOu want honest. Honestly tell me where all this dust appears that
obstructs our view of the top section and support structure.

Explain Mr. Mackey!

Are you really that obtuse that you can not understand how an office building that has been burning for an hour, unfought, over six consecutive floors (each floor is over an acre) and holds a ridiculous amount of gravitational kinetic energy, might produce some dust when it collapses?

[beachnut]

Out of curiosity, how was that calculated ?
E=mgh

energy equals, mass times gravity, times height.

g = 9.81 m/s2

Take the mass of the towers 288,636,363 kg,
G 9.81 m/s2
And the height of 407 meters

Gives, 1,200,000,000,000 joules (1.2x1012)

This is equal to 275 TONS of TNT, but the building did not fall 407 meters, each part fell part of 407 meters so half of this value, 137 TONS of TNT energy is available. You could take each floor average height and add up all the values for each floor mass times gravity, etc.

Using 4,184,000,000 joules per ton of TNT

[Turbofan]

Are you really that obtuse that you can not understand how an office building that has been burning for an hour, unfought, over six consecutive floors (each floor is over an acre) and holds a ridiculous amount of gravitational kinetic energy, might produce some dust when it collapses?

Are you for real?

Did you not realize the towers have perimeter and core columns? What
happened to those?

Are you not paying attention to the screen shot photos?

I'll ask you:

Where did that top 1/3 of the building end up?

What is left to crush 1000 feet of tower in 10 seconds.

Maybe you can help Mr. Mackey out with this...

[R.Mackey]

YOu want honest. Honestly tell me where all this dust appears that
obstructs our view of the top section and support structure.

Explain Mr. Mackey!

Honestly, from motion of the building. There were several acres of drywall being destroyed every second. On top of that, the structure was burning, throwing up a plume of smoke visible from space.

Again, nothing "poofed away," which I still don't have a clear definition of from you. All of the material is still there, in various stages of collapse. This material loads the lower structure and overwhelms it easily, as shown in numerous papers on the subject. Please read them before repeating your idiotic assertions again.

[Grizzly Bear]

Again, nothing "poofed away," which I still don't have a clear definition of from you. All of the material is still there, in various stages of collapse. This material loads the lower structure and overwhelms it easily, as shown in numerous papers on the subject. Please read them before repeating your idiotic assertions again.
Apparently when the dust obstructs the view of the upper section he assumes that the entire breath of the mass composing that section is completely disintegrated. I'm always confounded how they arrive at those sorts of conclusions, it really is absurd that they believe the mass disappears into thin air all because the view is obstructed.

[GStan]

Are you for real?

Did you not realize the towers have perimeter and core columns? What
happened to those?

Are you not paying attention to the screen shot photos?

I'll ask you:

Where did that top 1/3 of the building end up?

What is left to crush 1000 feet of tower in 10 seconds.

Maybe you can help Mr. Mackey out with this...

Read the papers that have already been linked in this thread. You obviously have no understanding of physics or you would not be in a thread about collapse physics barking about a sequence of photographs from a single vantage point of one of the collapses.

Knowledge is not the enemy. Ignorance is.

[Turbofan]

Honestly, from motion of the building. There were several acres of drywall being destroyed every second. On top of that, the structure was burning, throwing up a plume of smoke visible from space.

Again, nothing "poofed away," which I still don't have a clear definition of from you. All of the material is still there, in various stages of collapse. This material loads the lower structure and overwhelms it easily, as shown in numerous papers on the subject. Please read them before repeating your idiotic assertions again.

Don't make me laugh. THe paper is based on theory, not forensic
analysis of video evidence.

Once again Mr. Mackey, from the photos alone I can see the top section
(roofline, and wall sections), and support structure (corner of building and
perimeter walls).

Where did the top 300 feet end up? In your answer, please consider
the angle, the core matrix of steel and perimeter columns.

Also consider the time taken to destroy 1000 feet of the tower.

It seems you'll need to provide/write another theory.

[Alt+F4]

THe paper is based on theory, not forensic analysis of video evidence.

I'll admit I know little about physics but I do know that you drawing green and red lines on a photograph is in no way a forensic analysis of anything.

[R.Mackey]

You are incorrect. NIST provides the most thorough forensic examination of video evidence -- see NCSTAR1-5A in particular.

NIST also verifies that pieces of the upper structure were recovered from the debris pile after all was said and done. That rather refutes the notion of them being "poofed away." Again, all of that material is still there, merely obscured by dust and smoke. Since it is still there, it still impacts and exerts force on the lower structure, and leads to the collapse.

And, again, this should be utterly obvious. It might help me understand what your problem is if you articulate your understanding of what happened. And please do not use imprecise terms like "poof away."

[DGM]

Don't make me laugh. THe paper is based on theory, not forensic
analysis of video evidence.

Once again Mr. Mackey, from the photos alone I can see the top section
(roofline, and wall sections), and support structure (corner of building and
perimeter walls).

Where did the top 300 feet end up? In your answer, please consider
the angle, the core matrix of steel and perimeter columns.

Also consider the time taken to destroy 1000 feet of the tower.

It seems you'll need to provide/write another theory.
You need to show how you conclude what you do from those screen shots.

Hint: you can't see enough detail to determine the condition of the structure. Your making conclusions from assumptions your pictures don't support.

[Turbofan]

NIST did not explain the collapse.

The video / photo evidence is clear.

Forget the green and red lines. I can remove them and nothing changes.

Stop avoiding the obvious.

Answer my quesitons. Where did the top 300 feet end up? What is
left to crush 1000 feet of tower in ~ 10 seconds?

[R.Mackey]

I answered your questions. You answer mine. I cannot help you if I don't understand your concern. Tell me what you think happened, and we can clear it up very, very quickly.

[Turbofan]

Explosives!

Supported by eye-witness testimony, video (audio of explosions), and Dr. Jones
research.

Further supported by the video evidence clearly showing the top section
disappearing before the supporting tower begins to descend.

[R.Mackey]

Dr. Jones does not support explosives.

Can you be any more specific? What explosives, where, when triggered, having what effects?

[nicepants]

Ha....he just posted
[COLOR="Red"]
So while I wait for your experts response... Why don't you go ahead and ask him to calculate the amount of energy required to:

- Crush the steel superstructure of the building.
- Pulverize the concrete to a fine powder...snip

Wait...so HE claims that the amount of energy is insufficient, yet requests that YOU calculate the amount of energy required for these things?

He should already know the answers if he knows that there wasn't enough energy.

[DGM]

Explosives!

Supported by eye-witness testimony, video (audio of explosions), and Dr. Jones
research.

Further supported by the video evidence clearly showing the top section
disappearing before the supporting tower begins to descend.
Would you mind linking this "audio evidence" . (Any bets he links a known fake?)

[beachnut]

Explosives!

Supported by eye-witness testimony, video (audio of explosions), and Dr. Jones
research.

Further supported by the video evidence clearly showing the top section
disappearing before the supporting tower begins to descend.

Jones said Thermite, it is not an explosive, it is used to weld railroad ties and disable military equipment, neat experiments, or just make a dumb video. Sorry, you messed up the facts, next time research thermite and how Dr Jones out of the blue, 4 years after 9/11, made up a thermite conspiracy theory without even doing research.

Sorry, not a single explosion was used to bring down the towers or WTC7, not even the Pentagon, or flight 93. You must of missed 7 years of real research to pick the dumbest ideas to present here on 9/11; again.

[CHF]

Turbofan,

Assuming that gravity and kinetic energy cannot account for what happebed to the WTC towers....how much explosives would be needed to account for what was observed?

Let's see some numbers.

Remember: you need enough explosives to make the WTC go "poof," (ie. blast into dust).

[Turbofan]

Dr. Jones does not support explosives.

Can you be any more specific? What explosives, where, when triggered, having what effects?

Thermate/Thermite found in dust samples from the Trade Center complex.

You can reference his peer reviewed paper for further information about his
study.

[Corsair 115]

There were several acres of drywall being destroyed every second.Anyone who has spent any time at all handling or cutting drywall can attest to the fact of how much dust it can produce under such normal activities, let alone when being completely demolished in a building collapse.

I've done a little drywall handling and cutting of my own. The stuff can be quite dusty, no doubt about it.

[WildCat]

I'm always confounded how they arrive at those sorts of conclusions, it really is absurd that they believe the mass disappears into thin air all because the view is obstructed.
It's like when a 2 year old child thinks you can't see him if he puts his hands over his eyes.

It is cute though!

[dtugg]

Thermate/Thermite found in dust samples from the Trade Center complex.

You can reference his peer reviewed paper for further information about his
study.

By peer, you mean other moron twoofers, right?

[WildCat]

Thermate/Thermite found in dust samples from the Trade Center complex.

You can reference his peer reviewed paper for further information about his
study.
You think thermite is an explosive?

[Turbofan]

Anyone who has spent any time at all handling or cutting drywall can attest to the fact of how much dust it can produce under such normal activities, let alone when being completely demolished in a building collapse.

I've done a little drywall handling and cutting of my own. The stuff can be quite dusty, no doubt about it.

What does drywall dust have to do with the destruction of the top section
before the bottom section?

You all believe that a less massive 300 foot section can crush 1000 feet of
more rubust tower in 10 seconds by gravity alone? :rolleyes:


Still waiting for answers to my questions which keep getting avoided...for
some....strange...reas...on...

[WildCat]

By peer, you mean other moron twoofers, right?
Of course, unless those peers were the Washingtons, Lincolns, Jeffersons, Franklins, and Hamiltons required for publication in the vanity journal he found.

[R.Mackey]

Thermate/Thermite found in dust samples from the Trade Center complex.

Nope. And thermate/thermite (you should be able to pick one, if you really have evidence, you know...) is not an explosive.

You can reference his peer reviewed paper for further information about his
study.

There is no such paper. I've already explained the issues with both the Bentham and The Environmentalist papers, which are the only things you can possibly be referencing. Neither contains what you say it does, and neither was properly reviewed.

And you still haven't answered my question. Your hypothesis thus far consists of only a single word: "Explosives!" Unless you provide more detail, I will simply discard it as frivolous.

[WildCat]

You all believe that a less massive 300 foot section can crush 1000 feet of
more rubust tower one floor at a time in 10 15-20 seconds by gravity alone? :rolleyes:
Fixed for accuracy.

The answer is "yes".

And it's funny, no truther has published a paper yet in a peer-reviewed journal which either casts doubt on the NIST theory or provides an alternative theory on the tower's destruction. I wonder why that is? OK, I don't really wondewr, I'm just humoring you. The reason no truther has been able to publish is because they have nothing. Zilch. Nada.

[DGM]

Thermate/Thermite found in dust samples from the Trade Center complex.

You can reference his peer reviewed paper for further information about his
study.
Wow, I bet if Jones said the world was flat this one would believe. (I love the "peer reviewed" appeal for authority)

[GStan]

What does drywall dust have to do with the destruction of the top section
before the bottom section?

You all believe that a less massive 300 foot section can crush 1000 feet of
more rubust tower in 10 seconds by gravity alone? :rolleyes:


Still waiting for answers to my questions which keep getting avoided...for
some....strange...reas...on...

:tr:

drywall dust is part of the reason you can't see that the top section was not "poofed"

the top section only has to crush the next floor down, which is absorbed into the falling mass, and crushed the next floor down, etc. etc.

you do not want answers to your questions. you want to find more people who also know nothing about physics to reassure your fleeting fantasy.

[dtugg]

Of course, unless those peers were the Washingtons, Lincolns, Jeffersons, Franklins, and Hamiltons required for publication in the vanity journal he found.

You forgot Grants. :)

[GStan]

Nope. <snip> Unless you provide more detail, I will simply discard it as frivolous.

Discarding it might be a huge time saver. The force is strong with this one.

[Turbofan]

Nope. And thermate/thermite (you should be able to pick one, if you really have evidence, you know...) is not an explosive.

No worries, I'm onto your game.

Incendiaries

Again, you can consult Dr. Jones' paper for more info and education on
the subject.


Until you can explain how nothing can squish 1000 feet on something
in 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds I'll view your reply
as "beating around the bush".

[ElMondoHummus]

Thermate/Thermite found in dust samples from the Trade Center complex.

You can reference his peer reviewed paper for further information about his
study.

Thermate/thermite was not found in dust samples from the WTC complex. Jones found iron microspheres, who's origin can be from a variety of sources.

His paper is not properly peer reviewed. SF911T peer review is cargo-cult methodology. A peer review must have referees with qualifications in the field(s) the paper covers, and must be independent.

You've been around this forum long enough to have read all this before.

[R.Mackey]

No worries, I'm onto your game.

Incendiaries

Ah, so now it's a different word. But it's still only one word.

What incendiaries? Where? How much? How triggered? Having what effects? Surely you have some additional insight..?


Again, you can consult Dr. Jones' paper for more info and education on
the subject.

I have consulted them, and they are rubbish. See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489) and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120293). Neither provides any support for thermite, any evidence, any data. Neither is even repeatable. Neither was properly reviewed. Full stop.


Until you can explain how nothing can squish 1000 feet on something
in 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds I'll view your reply
as "beating around the bush".

It wasn't "nothing," it was the remains of the upper structure. And this was explained in formal scientific communication a mere three two days after September 11th, over seven years ago. See here (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf) for the first and here (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf) for the latest, which I've already linked in this thread. It's increasingly clear you aren't paying attention.

[twinstead]

You've been around this forum long enough to have read all this before.

This is KEY. Turbofan KNOWS all this. He knows that Jones' paper is NOT peer reviewed, not in any real sense of the word. He knows the weight of the real scientific community is against him. He knows Jones has NO honest evidence to support thermite/thermate.

He doesn't care. This is about world view, not facts.

[CurtC]

I just asked him how nano thermite explained any of his questions and he said

"Huge ****ing energy input that can account for all of the above. Gravity simply cannot."
If gravity cannot explain where the energy to do all that damage came from, ask him if he knows how much thermite it would take to have a much greater energy than the gravitational energy of the buildings. I haven't done the calculation for thermite, but I have for TNT, and their assertion would require about a million pounds of TNT.



You all believe that a less massive 300 foot section can crush 1000 feet of more rubust tower in 10 seconds by gravity alone?
Yes, that's exactly what we think - we saw it happen twice. I really don't understand what your objection to that is. 30 stories fall onto the 78th floor of the tower, and it immediately fails. Then 31 stores fall onto the 77th floor, and it immediately fails. Then 32 stores fall onto the 76th floor, ...

[beachnut]

No worries, I'm onto your game.

Incendiaries

Again, you can consult Dr. Jones' paper for more info and education on
the subject.


Until you can explain how nothing can squish 1000 feet on something
in 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds I'll view your reply
as "beating around the bush".

It is called energy. Gravity alone gave the WTC the potential energy of 130 TONS of TNT. Ignoring physics is a great idea for you, since it destroys your failed conclusions as you change your story to match the idiot ideas from Dr Jones.

Get some help in physics. Big clue, p4t do not understand physics and CIT and physics are not talking. Go see a real physics teacher to learn about the real world and how only 25,000,000 pounds of material are required to make on floor of the WTC fail; after studying the WTC structure you will see why it failed as it did and how the Chief Structural engineer agrees with the collapse mechanism you deny. He thinks Dr Jones ideas are pure stupid!

[CHF]

No worries, I'm onto your game.

Incendiaries

Ah yes, no worries at all. If cornered, just change your claim from "explosives!" to "incendiaries" on the fly and hope no one takes issue with this. The great Richard "pyroclastic" Gage does this all the time.

So now it was "incendiaries" that made the WTC go "poof." :rolleyes:

Which means we can now disregard all those witnesses who heard "explosions," right?

[Turbofan]

Mackey, it's clear you're not paying attention as you continue to avoid
my questions and revert to asking me questions about Dr. JOnes' paper
which I continue to point you toward for further info.

Here is the peer reviewed paper I'm talking about:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

ONe last time Mackey:

1. Where did the top go?

2. What's left to crush the tower?

Pretty basic questions. Difficult answers ;)

[Grizzly Bear]

Until you can explain how nothing can squish 1000 feet on something
in 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds I'll view your reply
as "beating around the bush".
Pretty much any assertion that the mass of the upper section; in-tact or not -- completely disintegrated into a cloud of dust like the one you're making is reason alone not to take your argument seriously. The mass is still there, and it's failing each floor in a domino effect. The entire foundation of your assertion is dead before it gets off the ground

[DGM]

It's increasingly clear you aren't paying attention.

Obviously would be a better objective. (The things us laymen have to point out to rocket scientists. :D)

[WildCat]

Here is the peer reviewed paper I'm talking about:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

See the bolded part? You really should learn what this term means before throw it about any more.

[Turbofan]

Pretty much any assertion that the mass of the upper section; in-tact or not -- completely disintegrated into a cloud of dust like the one you're making is reason alone not to take your argument seriously. The mass is still there, and it's failing each floor in a domino effect. The entire foundation of your assertion is dead before it gets off the ground

Domino effect huh? That theory was let go along time ago. Please keep up
with the lastest spin. Remember the CORE COLUMNS!

You might also want to look at the video and photos of the 'collapse' as
it clearly shows the top breaking apart before the bottom support structure.

I guess I need to draw more lines and highlight the obvious parts because
you all just seem to overlook this simple evidence?

OK people, can you all see the top section in the photo shots?

Can you all see the corner of the tower highlighted by the line?

Basics.

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, it's clear you're not paying attention as you continue to avoid
my questions and revert to asking me questions about Dr. JOnes' paper
which I continue to point you toward for further info.

Here is the peer reviewed paper I'm talking about:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

And you will note, if you bother to read my replies, that the above paper is precisely the one I was talking about, and linked to. It contains no evidence of thermite. It's title is "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction."

I am not asking you questions about the paper. I am telling you that it does not contain evidence of thermite. That is what you claimed, and you are wrong yet again.


ONe last time Mackey:

1. Where did the top go?

2. What's left to crush the tower?

Pretty basic questions. Difficult answers ;)

One last time I will answer you, yet again:

1. It collapsed and fell on the lower structure. In your photos, it hasn't "gone" anywhere. It is right there obscured by the smoke and dust.

2. The rubble of the upper structure is left to crush the tower.

Very easy answers. I will not repeat them again. Even the simplest member of the Truth Movement should be able to appreciate these answers.

[Mancman]

OK people, can you all see the top section in the photo shots?

Can you all see the corner of the tower highlighted by the line?

Basics.

Do you see the floors being crushed below your red line?

[Turbofan]

And you will note, if you bother to read my replies, that the above paper is precisely the one I was talking about, and linked to. It contains no evidence of thermite. It's title is "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction."

I am not asking you questions about the paper. I am telling you that it does not contain evidence of thermite. That is what you claimed, and you are wrong yet again.



One last time I will answer you, yet again:

1. It collapsed and fell on the lower structure. In your photos, it hasn't "gone" anywhere. It is right there obscured by the smoke and dust.

2. The rubble of the upper structure is left to crush the tower.

Very easy answers. I will not repeat them again. Even the simplest member of the Truth Movement should be able to appreciate these answers.

No the floors are not being crushed below the red line! You can still see the
corner of the tower at that point.

For your sake and Mackey's, here are the pictures again:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

How does the top 300 feet of tower disappear if the corner of the building
has not moved?

READ AGAIN: Where is the 300 feet of tower below the RED LINE? :rolleyes:


P.S. Wildcat, is the The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal not good
enough for your taste? Please tell me what's wrong with this?

[3bodyproblem]

What does drywall dust have to do with the destruction of the top section
before the bottom section?

You all believe that a less massive 300 foot section can crush 1000 feet of
more rubust tower in 10 seconds by gravity alone? :rolleyes:


Still waiting for answers to my questions which keep getting avoided...for
some....strange...reas...on...

I can't tell if you're one of the ones that doesn't understand density or what's going on here. (NM, I see from your last post you're a "crush up" fan, me too)

How long should it take, by your calculation, for the upper "mass" (let's use mass because it's so much more useful than 300 foot section) to crush the much more robust lower "mass"?

[Quad4_72]

One last time I will answer you, yet again:

1. It collapsed and fell on the lower structure. In your photos, it hasn't "gone" anywhere. It is right there obscured by the smoke and dust.

2. The rubble of the upper structure is left to crush the tower.

Very easy answers. I will not repeat them again. Even the simplest member of the Truth Movement should be able to appreciate these answers.

Haven't you given him that answer like over three times already? Then he just repeats the exact same question over and over again. You may want to save yourself some time and sanity on this one mackey.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Explosives!

Supported by eye-witness testimony, video (audio of explosions), and Dr. Jones
research.

Further supported by the video evidence clearly showing the top section
disappearing before the supporting tower begins to descend.

Where exactly were these "explosives" placed? Core, perimeter?

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/WTC2_collapse2.jpg

[UNLoVedRebel]

Since when do we need red and green lines to figure out if a building was brought down by a controlled demolition?

[Quad4_72]

Also Turbofan you must stop repeating the ten second line. The collapse takes well over ten seconds. Videos can be deceptive with the timing because you cannot fully see their collapse down to the bottom. Also, core columns remained intact for some time after the collapse. By the way, didn't you say everything was incinerated? If the key structural elements were indeed "turned to dust" during the collapse, then why were core columns left standing afterwards? Also, why were so many steel beam segments stacked 6 stories high in the rubble?

[R.Mackey]

No the floors are not being crushed below the red line! You can still see the
corner of the tower at that point.

For your sake and Mackey's, here are the pictures again:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

For my sake and my sake? Get a grip, son.

You could also arbitrarily draw a red line at the 10th story, and say "the floors are not being crushed below the red line!" I totally fail to see the problem here.


How does the top 300 feet of tower disappear if the corner of the building
has not moved?

READ AGAIN: Where is the 300 feet of tower below the RED LINE? :rolleyes:


READ AGAIN: Obscured by smoke and dust. Collapsed. Taking up a smaller volume.

No mass disappeared.

You also have, consistently, failed to give me what you think happened. Rather than answer our questions, you simply keep repeating your own, and ignoring the answers. Quite ineffcient procedure.

Since you won't tell me what you think happened, I am forced to guess. I therefore guess you believe the following: Incendiaries were set off in the upper block, of such incredible magnitude that the upper block actually vaporized. This can only be what you mean by "poofed away" and your dogged insistence that it "disappeared" as in your latest post.

This hypothesis is perhaps the second stupidest in the history of the Truth Movement.

If that isn't what you believe, I invite you for a fourth time to clarify what it is you do believe.


P.S. Wildcat, is the The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal not good
enough for your taste? Please tell me what's wrong with this?

Read my thread on the issue. The Bentham paper was not peer reviewed. It was greenlit solely by Mr. Mahmood Alam of Pakistan, who has no discernible expertise in any relevant discipline, operating in defiance of the Journal's editor-in-chief's directives, for the sum of $600 US. And, again, even if we overlook this shocking irregularity, it does not contain or even claim to contain evidence of thermite. I don't think you've even read it.

[DGM]

No the floors are not being crushed below the red line! You can still see the
corner of the tower at that point.

For your sake and Mackey's, here are the pictures again:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

How does the top 300 feet of tower disappear if the corner of the building
has not moved?

READ AGAIN: Where is the 300 feet of tower below the RED LINE? :rolleyes:


P.S. Wildcat, is the The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal not good
enough for your taste? Please tell me what's wrong with this?
Let me try to explain this in terms you'll understand;

Go get 1000 of your square Lego's. Now assemble a 10 story tower using 100 blocks per floor (simple math even a "truther" can understand). Now kick over your tower (don't cry you can build it again). Did all the floors fail as individual units? My guess is they didn't. They became dissociated and random much like the towers, didn't they?

Isn't science fun?

[beachnut]

Where exactly were these "explosives" placed? Core, perimeter?

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/WTC2_collapse2.jpg
Sucking explosives pulled the columns in.

Turbo fan believes the impact of the aircraft did not cut columns.

How is it possible to shotgun so many ideas and all of them are wrong?

[rwguinn]

Ryan:
"Because it feels so good when you stop" is not considered (even among engineers and rocket scientists) to be a valid reason to keep banging your head against a brick wall...:D

[T.A.M.]

yah I am with rwguinn on this one Mackey. It does not matter what you will say to Turbofan, he will not listen, and cannot be reasoned with.

And since very few if anybody else but us and he are listening, why bother?

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

Domino effect huh? That theory was let go along time ago.
It was let go as factor in collapse initiation, not for the progression of the collapse following.

Remember the CORE COLUMNS!
Yes, I implore you to remember that they were the last components to fail. And do well to indicate that the collapse progression was a result of pancaking of the floors. Unless you prefer to elaborate on what it is you want me to "remember" about them...

You might also want to look at the video and photos of the 'collapse' as it clearly shows the top breaking apart before the bottom support structure.
As Mackey has already pointed out, the mass doesn't disappear into thin air. It's still imparting a significant force upon the structure immediately beneath it. Not much else needs to be said with this as Mackey has already elaborated on this in detail

yah I am with rwguinn on this one Mackey. It does not matter what you will say to Turbofan, he will not listen, and cannot be reasoned with.

And since very few if anybody else but us and he are listening, why bother?

TAM:)

That is most likely true, but I still feel that the pertinent information provided by the response will nevertheless benefit lurkers who are not immediately familiar with either the existing content already discussed in other threads, or those who are unaware of the discussion at all.

[Mancman]

No the floors are not being crushed below the red line! You can still see the
corner of the tower at that point.

Oh wow. Really, nothing happening below the red line?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

The fact that a piece of the corner is still visible means nothing. It is obvious to anyone that the floors below your line have been impacted by the mass above.

I guess you think no floors have been crushed in this image either, as parts of the perimeter are visible:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524939b127ccecd.jpg

[Turbofan]

I don't have time to play your games Mackey. The thought of me having
to outline the upper structure and corner of the tower shows your lack
of engineering and visual skills.

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/formackey.jpg

Please tell me how the tilted upper section disappears? Use the extended
green lines to note how far down the structure must be. Actually it runs
off the page!

Also note the blue lines which show the corner of the tower still intact.

How about those core columns? Still connected...

Explain it Mr. Engineer.

[beachnut]

Has Turbofan built a house of cards and proven the WTC fell as shown? He better switch to pizza boxes.


I suspect he built a model of the WTC, and it fell as the WTC did on 9/11 and he is upset so he is posting junk.





[chem-trail believer]What if Turbofan is immune to chem-trails and has not fallen for the government story. [/chem-trail believer]

[dtugg]

I don't have time to play your games Mackey. The thought of me having
to outline the upper structure and corner of the tower shows your lack
of engineering and visual skills.

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/formackey.jpg

Please tell me how the tilted upper section disappears? Use the extended
green lines to note how far down the structure must be. Actually it runs
off the page!

Also note the blue lines which show the corner of the tower still intact.

How about those core columns? Still connected...

Explain it Mr. Engineer.

Somebody who claims that an airplane took an impossible flight path towards the Pentagon and didn't hit it (despite ever single eyewitness saying otherwise) is challenging the engineering skills of an actual rocket scientist. You are awesome Turbofan! Please never change!

[A W Smith]

Turbofan
I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to say that crush up cannot happen while claiming in the same breath that the lower half is stronger that the upper half? You lost me. And apparently you have failed to consider the effects the fires and plane collision had on the integrity of the upper half as well.

[R.Mackey]

I don't have time to play your games Mackey.

Asking you to explain yourself is a "game?"

The thought of me having
to outline the upper structure and corner of the tower shows your lack
of engineering and visual skills.

Fine, dazzle me with your skill.

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/formackey.jpg

Please tell me how the tilted upper section disappears? Use the extended
green lines to note how far down the structure must be. Actually it runs
off the page!

Also note the blue lines which show the corner of the tower still intact.

Umm... Those lines are sheer fantasy. The structure cannot possibly deform in the manner you just drew. Nor is there any visual indication that it did.

How about those core columns? Still connected...

Connected to what, the upper block? Impossible. And totally invisible in this and all pictures of the event.


Explain it Mr. Engineer.

Sure (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389). Your contention that the upper block "poofed away" is a typical Strong Irreducible Delusion. I don't know how you drew that conclusion or why, but it doesn't matter. The fact is you refuse to let go of it, no matter how obvious the error is, or how ridiculous the conclusions you draw from it. It simply is.

I don't expect you to change your opinion, but it is abundantly clear to everyone that it is wrong. Your participation here, however, is useful as a cautionary example.

[twinstead]

I don't expect you to change your opinion, but it is abundantly clear to everyone that it is wrong. Your participation here, however, is useful as a cautionary example.

Turbofan is not an idiot. He KNOWS he is wrong. He is also a member of a cult. Lots of smart people get involved in cults.

[Turbofan]

Umm... Those lines are sheer fantasy. The structure cannot possibly deform in the manner you just drew. Nor is there any visual indication that it did.


Wake up Mackey! It sure did disappear. Watch the damn video!

YOu're right about one thing - the structure cannot deform in such a manner.

It's all in the video...you just have to click and watch. Slow it down.
Pause it. Do whatever it takes before you reply again.

Don't make me post every frame from start to finish and follow the points
of the structure vs. debris/dust. You wont like the result, I promise you.

[A W Smith]

Well Ill post a video for you turbofan


http://greattube.net/video/95871/911-south-tower-collapse-video-compilation.html


opps your assertions aren't looking so good now are they?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Wake up Mackey! It sure did disappear. Watch the damn video!

YOu're right about one thing - the structure cannot deform in such a manner.

It's all in the video...you just have to click and watch. Slow it down.
Pause it. Do whatever it takes before you reply again.

Don't make me post every frame from start to finish and follow the points
of the structure vs. debris/dust. You wont like the result, I promise you.

If you can't come up with an explanation after all these years, then it's time to tap out. You know it's time to throw in the towel when VenomFangX has more "evidence" that contradicts evolution than you have on the "official story." Get a new hobby. Move on. Don't worry about posting obnoxious comments and trying so desperately to get the last word on an Internet forum.

[WildCat]

Well Ill post a video for you turbofan


http://greattube.net/video/95871/911-south-tower-collapse-video-compilation.html


opps your assertions aren't looking so good now are they?
Wow, the opening audio of that really brings the memories flooding back. I was listening to that broadcast on the radio (they were just broadcasting the TV feed), I never did see any video of the events until I got home after 5 PM that night. I haven't heard that particular audio segment since, but it has stuck with me through the years. :(

[R.Mackey]

Wake up Mackey! It sure did disappear. Watch the damn video!

No, it didn't.


YOu're right about one thing - the structure cannot deform in such a manner.

Which naturally leads one to conclude that it didn't.


It's all in the video...you just have to click and watch. Slow it down.
Pause it. Do whatever it takes before you reply again.

I don't think even magic mushrooms would do the trick.

Don't make me post every frame from start to finish and follow the points
of the structure vs. debris/dust. You wont like the result, I promise you.

I have no intention of "making" you do any such thing. The dark road you are on, you travel alone.

[Turbofan]

No, it didn't.

Which naturally leads one to conclude that it didn't.

I don't think even magic mushrooms would do the trick.

I have no intention of "making" you do any such thing. The dark road you are on, you travel alone.

Here you go R. Mackey and friends. You might want to study the frame
by frame analysis and TRY to explain what you are seeing.

More importantly, answer my questions after viewing the following video
and frame shots:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/st_nbc1.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/stc_frames.html

300 feet gone before the tower descends.

[Confuseling]

You must obey the laws of physics.
...

Advice to live by.

Turbofan, even my cat has object permanence. And she's dead.

If it's that obvious that the video shows a section being outright obliterated by devices unknown, in a manner not conceivably compatible with the sole effects of fire and structural damage, why are you the only person who has noticed?

Do you not understand that people can look at rocks on Mars, and be totally convinced they're seeing Pixie cities, and still be breathtakingly, incontrovertibly wrong?

Would you not sensibly assume that if this video anomaly existed, and if 99% of the Western world, media and academia included, had been hoodwinked by a disinformation campaign, somebody outside the Western world might have noticed? You know... the Chinese maybe. The Russians. The Iranians. Al-Qaeda.

You can pee your life away on a fantasy if you want. I hope it's better than whatever you're trying to escape. Have fun.

[WildCat]

If it's that obvious that the video shows a section being outright obliterated by devices unknown, in a manner not conceivably compatible with the sole effects of fire and structural damage, why are you the only person who has noticed?
Ace Baker, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer et al noticed... not exactly the sort of company you keep if you don't live in Crazy Town.

Turbofan, are you a proponent of Judy Wood and her dustification via space beam theory?

[Grizzly Bear]

Most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, it would fall as one piece, like a tree. Unless, of course, this section had been shattered by some as yet unaknowledged force such es explosives or energy beams.

I like these lines of arguments... that said, pretty much any load that the structure's not even remotely designed for will do that if it's enough. The axial strength of the structure was never intended to hold the structure in anything but a vertical position.

300 feet gone before the tower descends.
You're inability to understand that the mass is there regardless of the condition of the upper section is marginally hilarious... Unfortunately your assertion is based on nothing more than the arbitrary appearance & a little bit of wild imagination.

[R.Mackey]

Here you go R. Mackey and friends. You might want to study the frame
by frame analysis and TRY to explain what you are seeing.

300 feet gone before the tower descends.

Let's just try to move on. I accept that you believe 300 feet of the tower disappeared before the collapse begin. You should likewise accept that I believe no such thing. My viewpoint is not likely to change on this, and certainly will not without a vastly more sophisticated discussion than "look at the pictures!!!"

So, moving on, given that you believe this, how do you believe it happened? Did the 300 feet of structure vaporize? Was it blasted into a microscopic powder? Did it just wink out of existence? Did it never exist in the first place? What do you claim happened?

And, equally importantly, why are you so reluctant to tell us this part of what you believe? You're content to cry some parts from the rooftops, so why will you not give us the rest?

[Turbofan]

Let's just try to move on. I accept that you believe 300 feet of the tower disappeared before the collapse begin. You should likewise accept that I believe no such thing. My viewpoint is not likely to change on this, and certainly will not without a vastly more sophisticated discussion than "look at the pictures!!!"

So, moving on, given that you believe this, how do you believe it happened? Did the 300 feet of structure vaporize? Was it blasted into a microscopic powder? Did it just wink out of existence? Did it never exist in the first place? What do you claim happened?

And, equally importantly, why are you so reluctant to tell us this part of what you believe? You're content to cry some parts from the rooftops, so why will you not give us the rest?


Is it not obvious enough via video and still frame captures?

Do you want me to forget what I clearly see in the video and move on with
my life?

You continue to ask "how" and "when" and "why"?

Who knows? Who cares at this point?

The bigger issue is that the top section dissolves. What technology was
used? Multiple events? Classified technologies perhaps?

You can't explain how the top section disappears.

I can't explain how it was done.

We do have the following to consider:

- Fire has never destroyed a steel framed building.
- Exceptional speed of destruction
- Thermate residue found in dust samples
- Photos of core columns cut on an angle
- Witness testimony of explosion felt and heard
- Pyroclastic cloud formations
- Audio/Video of explosions
- Lack of energy to explain damage via gravity
- Absence of either top section remaining intact to crush 1000+ feet of tower
- Molten steel testimony/video
- Infra-red thermal imaging weeks after showing extreme temperatures
- Video of destruction showing CD
- Massive sections of steel thrown several hundred feet

What's that phrase you all like to use around here? If it looks like a duck,
and acts like a duck...

[Bananaman]

Turbofan, you are an expert in precisely nothing and talk endless bollocks.

You know nothing about anything. Please just stop wasting people's time.

Bananaman.

[R.Mackey]

Is it not obvious enough via video and still frame captures?

Do you want me to forget what I clearly see in the video and move on with
my life?

I would prefer you to learn something, but today I'll settle for you answering my questions.


You continue to ask "how" and "when" and "why"?

Who knows? Who cares at this point?

I care, and you should care. You claim to be interested in this subject.


The bigger issue is that the top section dissolves. What technology was
used? Multiple events? Classified technologies perhaps?

"Classified technologies" to make 100 meters of tower, massing about 50,000 tons, disappear? That's the best you can do, isn't it?

You can't explain how the top section disappears.

I can't explain how it was done.

I don't have to explain how it disappears, because in my theory, it doesn't.

If you can't explain how it was done, then you admit you have no theory at all.

You aren't likely to convince anyone to believe your theory if you don't even have one. In other words, you lose.

We do have the following to consider:

- Fire has never destroyed a steel framed building.

Wrong.


- Exceptional speed of destruction

Wrong. See App. B of my whitepaper.


- Thermate residue found in dust samples

Wrong. Already gave you discussion of Dr. Jones's papers, and see Lioy et al. for a proper dust analysis.


- Photos of core columns cut on an angle

... by salvage crews


- Witness testimony of explosion felt and heard

None of whom believe there were actually explosives.

- Pyroclastic cloud formations

Wrong.

- Audio/Video of explosions

Wrong unless using an artificially broad definition of explosions. Audio rules out explosives.


- Lack of energy to explain damage via gravity

Totally wrong. Again see App. B or Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson, I've now told you this three times.


- Absence of either top section remaining intact to crush 1000+ feet of tower

You're the only one claiming this, and you can't even explain how it might hypothetically be possible.


- Molten steel testimony/video

Wrong. Endless threads on this.


- Infra-red thermal imaging weeks after showing extreme temperatures

True, and totally inconsistent with thermite or explosives. See DELTA, or see here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103289) for a quick and dirty analysis.


- Video of destruction showing CD

Even you can't describe what kind of CD it is, so you must know you are wrong here.


- Massive sections of steel thrown several hundred feet

Evidence against explosives. See pp.96-98 of my whitepaper (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf).


What's that phrase you all like to use around here? If it looks like a duck,
and acts like a duck...

I've used that phrase, yes. In this case, it is made of steel, painted yellow, has caterpillar tracks, consumes diesel fuel, can be ordered from construction companies, is delivered on a flatbed, is operated by hydraulics, and is frequently seen moving large quantities of earth, yet you insist on calling it a "duck."

It would have saved us a great deal of time had you simply announced the depth of your delusions up front. You are far, far more resistant to reality than I would have guessed from your other postings.

[Turbofan]

Your white paper holds no value because the video shows otherwise.

Now you're trying to tell me pyroclastic clouds are just some mind trick?

I see your depth of physics. Just type "wrong" after all the factual
video evidence, and point to your white paper which is based on theory
and no actual data?

Hold onto this because it's all you have - a theory:

I don't have to explain how it disappears, because in my theory, it doesn't.

[twinstead]

I hate those Bullet Points of Truth like the one Turbofan just used. Scattergun debate by throwing a huge bunch of stuff that we're supposed to assume is true to try to prove ones point, when in actuality little if ANY of it is true at all. Yea, let's just throw a huge bunch of crap against the wall hoping that SOMETHING will stick.

Nice. Turbofan, you act as if you are the only sane person in the world who has ever looked at the collapse videos. You know there are quite a lot of pretty smart people who have, and they disagree with you. Why do you think that is?

[R.Mackey]

Your white paper holds no value because the video shows otherwise.

So you claim. But, again, you freely admit that even you cannot support, even speculatively, your own claims. You admit your claims cannot be achieved with any known technology.

Most sane people stop at that point. I advise you to reconsider.


Now you're trying to tell me pyroclastic clouds are just some mind trick?

Not at all. "Pyroclastic Clouds" refer to a specific phenomenon associated with vulcanology, where a mixed density flow is accelerated by gravity and heating. This did not happen at the WTC. If it had, there could not possibly have been any survivors from within the structures, but there were. They would have been roasted to death had the flow actually been pyroclastic.

We've been explaining this to members of the Truth Movement for over two years. This phrase is a useful marker to see just how credulous and how uneducated any given poster really is. In your case, it was unnecessary, but still a valid point of cross-reference.


I see your depth of physics. Just type "wrong" after all the factual
video evidence, and point to your white paper which is based on theory
and no actual data?

This is a simple lie. I reference over 100 papers in my whitepaper, and carry out about twenty simple calculations in the text, open book, to verify my findings and help educate the reader. The physics is pretty deep, if you bother to read it.


Hold onto this because it's all you have - a theory:

I use the formal scientific definition of a theory. That is all we are likely to ever have, and it is all we need.

You, on the other hand, do not even have a hypothesis. Yet, oddly, this doesn't deter you in the least. You might want to at least glance at the scoreboard before declaring victory.

[Turbofan]

This is a simple lie. I reference over 100 papers in my whitepaper, and carry out about twenty simple calculations in the text, open book, to verify my findings and help educate the reader. The physics is pretty deep, if you bother to read it.

No it's not a lie.

Your calculations do not consider the 47 core columns running up the middle
of the tower.

You fail to explain how the majority of these columns became disconnected
from the top section, and failed to explain how the material was displaced.

Another huge omission is the lack of explanation of any large mass remaining
intact after crushing the tower.

But why stop there, how do you explain pulverization in mid air? Certainly you
know that resistance is required to break apart the concrete?

Where is the deceleration and subsequent arrest of descent? How can a
smaller mass destroy an object twice its size by gravity alone?

Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday. YOu need to write another paper based on
the video evidence and follow the scientific method. Maybe try adding some
physics in there as well. Could help out.

[R.Mackey]

No it's not a lie.

It is a lie! Your further comments absolutely confirm you haven't even read my whitepaper.


Your calculations do not consider the 47 core columns running up the middle
of the tower.

They don't need to. I explicitly declare the assumptions, and I refer readers to the more precise paper by Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson, which you also have not read.

You fail to explain how the majority of these columns became disconnected
from the top section, and failed to explain how the material was displaced.

Nope. I treat this explicitly in narrative on pp. 102-105, following and clarifying the work of NIST. Like I said, you didn't read it.

Another huge omission is the lack of explanation of any large mass remaining
intact after crushing the tower.

I do not make this claim. Indeed, I've explained here repeatedly that survival of the core remnant proves the descending mass was not intact after crushing the Tower.


But why stop there, how do you explain pulverization in mid air? Certainly you
know that resistance is required to break apart the concrete?

Treated numerically on pp. 168-169 in my response to the comically idiotic Charles Thurston. Under the most optimistic assumptions possible, it would require an estimated 14,700 kg of TNT to cause such pulverization, and thus we reject this out of hand. It didn't happen.


Where is the deceleration and subsequent arrest of descent? How can a
smaller mass destroy an object twice its size by gravity alone?

The smaller mass accumulates mass as it falls. Gravity accelerates it. Everyone in the world understands this.


Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday. YOu need to write another paper based on
the video evidence and follow the scientific method. Maybe try adding some
physics in there as well. Could help out.

And, again, you have some cheek criticizing a paper you have never read, do not understand, and are not equipped to dispute.

I'm really not interested in your made-up objections. I'd rather talk about something you can answer, namely what it is that you believe. Going back to your "Classified Technology:" What kind of technology do you think was used to "poof away" a 100 meter section of WTC 2? Beam weapons? Teleportation? Holography? Mass hypnotism? Time travel? Can't you narrow it down at all?

[Turbofan]

Actually, I did read it. Would you like me to cut and paste it here to prove
I followed the link? :rolleyes:

Answer: Thermate, explosives. Possibly other.

You know, as much as you all deny and lie about the explosives there is
first responder video testimony detailing the sounds and feeling of explosions
as well as molten steel.

My fav quote:

"As if they planned to take down the building. Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom..."

Here are just a couple of many videos of testimony you can further deny: :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zyjY05wzao&feature=PlayList&p=5699CD4E26B9C6B5&index=17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDh-2DtGMB0

[Bananaman]

Turbomoron:
Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday.

Are you sure about that? You may I suppose be chronilogically over the age of 12, but in every other way you sound like you really were born yesterday.

You're just an idiot.

Bananaman.

Calling him an idiot furthers your argument how, eaxactly?

[Grizzly Bear]

You know, as much as you all deny and lie about the explosives there it first responder video testimony detailed the sounds and feeling of explosions.
<snip>
"As if they planned to take down the building. Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom..."

Oh yes... I hear the words detonated & "they had planned to take down a building". They even say "boom" to describe the sounds they hear! awesome compelling turbo! But damn those pesky little similes after every description; "as if"..." “As if they had planned to take down a building”. “It was as if they had detonated”

They even use body language in order to demonstrate it was the sound of the floors pancaking on top of one another:


boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

Got anymore witness testimony to distort turbofan?

[R.Mackey]

Actually, I did read it. Would you like me to cut and paste it here to prove
I followed the link? :rolleyes:

No, I want you to quit lying about reading it. You've proven it again in this post:


You know, as much as you all deny and lie about the explosives there is
first responder video testimony detailing the sounds and feeling of explosions
as well as molten steel.

My fav quote:

"As if they planned to take down the building. Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom..."

Treated on pg. 60. Captain Tardio, who stated the above, does not believe there were explosives in the Towers. Neither should you.


Answer: Thermate, explosives. Possibly other.

Thermate and explosives do not appear capable of "disappearing" 30,000 tons of structure. Is that really the best you can do??

[Turbofan]

They even use body language in order to demonstrate it was the sound of the floors pancaking on top of one another:


Pancaking?

Are you that far out of the lastest excuse? You know that pancaking
cannot occure because of the core columns right? Seems like most
people here forget those 47 massive core columns...

Did you also forget to watch the other parts of the video about molten
steel, and explosions. You know the same guy doing the hand movement
talks about a blown out elevator and explosions.

I guess I should expect this sort of selective debate from JREF by now.

[DGM]

Pancaking?

Are you that far out of the lastest excuse? You know that pancaking
cannot occure because of the core columns right? Seems like most
people here forget those 47 massive core columns...

Did you also forget to watch the other parts of the video about molten
steel, and explosions. You know the same guy doing the hand movement
talks about a blown out elevator and explosions.

I guess I should expect this sort of selective debate from JREF by now.

Why not? Please be as technical as you can. I'm a general contractor with lots of experience with tall buildings and I will understand.

[Grizzly Bear]

Pancaking?
Yes p-a-n-c-a-k-i-n-g. When an acre of floor space smashes into another acre-sized floor space. It's probably going to make a sound.

You know that pancaking cannot occure because of the core columns right? Seems like most people here forget those 47 massive core columns...
I'm a little confused by this statement. Could you please explain why this is? What about the core columns should have made it impossible? I'd be equally interested in listening to your technical knowledge on this.

Did you also forget to watch the other parts of the video about molten steel, and explosions. You know the same guy doing the hand movement talks about a blown out elevator and explosions.

And yet the TM had to fudge some of this material to make it seem more valid; everything from altering footage of work lights during cleanup operations to emit an orange glow to quote-mining witness testimony as you did now, to make the case more valid? Clearly none of that would be necessary if these phenomena were so blatantly obvious that laymen could pick this out with no effort whatsoever.

More telling than that however; what did this firefighter do about what he saw? Did he tell the proper authorities about these explosions? Was he placed on a gag order and threatened... Something tells me if he can walk into a building that he knows is at risk for structural failure, and risk his life to save people, losing 300 of his friends... that a simple threat to either fire him or withhold his pensions isn't much effect on his motivation to get such a story out.

[Bananaman]

Calling him an idiot furthers your argument how, eaxactly?

Well, er, it doesn't, I admit that, but it makes me feel better.

Bananaman.

[beachnut]

You can't explain how the top section disappears.

I can't explain how it was done.

We do have the following to consider:

- Fire has never destroyed a steel framed building.
- Exceptional speed of destruction
- Thermate residue found in dust samples
- Photos of core columns cut on an angle
- Witness testimony of explosion felt and heard
- Pyroclastic cloud formations
- Audio/Video of explosions
- Lack of energy to explain damage via gravity
- Absence of either top section remaining intact to crush 1000+ feet of tower
- Molten steel testimony/video
- Infra-red thermal imaging weeks after showing extreme temperatures
- Video of destruction showing CD
- Massive sections of steel thrown several hundred feet

What's that phrase you all like to use around here? If it looks like a duck,
and acts like a duck...
Many steel frame buildings have been destroyed by fire. Why do you make up lies?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
Fire and steel, not a good combination.
After studying steel, I find fire destroys the strength of steel quickly. Firemen know this, and due to this fact, steel is insulated to last 2 to 4 hours in a fire before it fails, but in the WTC the protection was destroyed by KINETIC ENERGY events of 1300, and 2093 pounds of TNT at the WTC towers. Not understanding the properties of steel is one reason why 9/11 truth displays total ignorance and the inability to understand some of the events of 9/11. Lack of knowledge and paranoid thinking must lead to 9/11 truth making up lies and fantasies; why do you believe this junk?

Sorry, more than enough energy to destroy the WTC is due to gravity. Got physics?

Hope you got some samples of the molten steel. You don't!

Video of the WTC shows a gravity collapse! In my case my engineering degree does not hurt to understand 9/11; but only a grade school educations is needed.

Massive steel sections were thrown by gravity collapse. Take a course in physics, dynamics, and even some statics would not hurt. But please stop proving you know nothing about these things by posting junk ideas.

Like your lie of 77 not impacting the Pentagon, you try to make up more; why do you lie for the terrorists? You and p4t call everyone who has rational ideas on 9/11, government loyalist; funny coming from terrorist apologists. Why are you apologizing for the terrorists?

[stateofgrace]

Pancaking?

Are you that far out of the lastest excuse? You know that pancaking
cannot occure because of the core columns right? Seems like most
people here forget those 47 massive core columns...



No, I didn't know that, could you explain it further please?

Does the survival of the core mean that the floors could not collapse onto each other in a pancake fashion?

Pray enlighten us all as to how you arrived at this conclusion.

[beachnut]

Actually, I did read it. Would you like me to cut and paste it here to prove
I followed the link? :rolleyes:

Answer: Thermate, explosives. Possibly other.

You know, as much as you all deny and lie about the explosives there is
first responder video testimony detailing the sounds and feeling of explosions
as well as molten steel.

My fav quote:

"As if they planned to take down the building. Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom..."

Here are just a couple of many videos of testimony you can further deny: :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zyjY05wzao&feature=PlayList&p=5699CD4E26B9C6B5&index=17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDh-2DtGMB0

The boom, boom, the guy was talking about was the noise of the floors falling into each other. Reality eludes 9/11 truth due to lack of knowledge.

When 9/11 truth believers gain knowledge, 9/11 truth believers will be no more. 7 years and thousands of believers in 9/11 truth have gain knowledge to join reality.

[Twister]

Hi guys.Please forgive my intrusion.I hope you guys understand that there are many of us laymen out here that belong to neither camp,we do not subscribe to the brain dead "for us or against us" deal.I'm just a country boy that desparately needs to know that these deaths were not at the hands of our own,nor were the events causing the deaths allowed to happen by our own.

The vast majority of us are not physicists or structural engineers,barely having an understanding of the nist reports,white papers etc.Yet,we still search for truth as the intentional murder of so many of our countrymen,and the subsequent deaths and hardships of so many of our friends and neighbors in the militarys and the families who love them.Please remember the seriousness of the subject at hand.

Mods,this is without a doubt one of the most informative posts I've found in years.Please allow it to run it's course.This subject has never been debated in our history pre-911.The emotional toll it has taken on laymen like myself is staggering.More so than possibly than some of you with the degrees.You don't have the same anger as some of us.And I can only pray for the other guys that are absolutely convinced of this treason,it must be an awful weight to bear.Since 911 I've slept,but can't remember the last time I actually rested or the last time I could drink my coffee without spillage due to the shakes.I need rest.
Peace
Oh and nice to meet ya'll.:D

[UNLoVedRebel]

.And I can only pray for the other guys that are absolutely convinced of this treason,it must be an awful weight to bear.

I don't think the JREF is a place of prayer...

[Twister]

Heh,got all emotional and forgot to post my questions..
A NYT article published February 2, 2002 named 'A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse;Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken To
Scrapyards' highlights engineers attempting to save WTC steel from scrap yards and the long trip to asia.

According to the article,there was evidence of steel melting.
(From Article)
"extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures. "
I can't find verification nor any full tests done on these compounds.

1.Could this have been linked in any way to the cores collapse?

2.Ditto.,or has this been discredited?
"Another crumpled steel member set aside at a Keasbey, N.J., scrapyard has markings clearly showing that it ran on the east face of the north tower from the 92nd to the 95th floor, in the center of one impact zone. Pieces of steel have also been found that were apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations."

3.Did the floors in the top third collapse before it began toppling?Was the toppling structure essentially hollow?

Thanks for your time.Sorry,no link.I'm green still. :-)
Peace

[Twister]

I don't think the JREF is a place of prayer...
Thanks for responding.I didn't pray.:) Though I'm of the faith,I don't practice the faith.Black sheep and all that.Just a figure of speech here.
Peace

[Confuseling]

By no means is everyone here an atheist. That's kind of what's good about it - many different perspectives. Welcome.

[sorry - no answers to your questions :)]

[Mancman]

Pancaking?

Are you that far out of the lastest excuse? You know that pancaking
cannot occure because of the core columns right? Seems like most
people here forget those 47 massive core columns...



Please explain how the core columns themselves could stop the shearing of bolts that were used to connect the trusses to a welded channel, which was attached to the outside of said core columns.

All that was required to break each entire floorplate from the core was the shearing of 132x5/8' diameter A325 bolts. This required absolutely no interaction between the descending mass and the columns themselves.

See this page for a diagram of the truss-column connections: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

[funk de fino]

We do have the following to consider:

- Fire has never destroyed a steel framed building.

Oh dear, you are wrong

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10770)

Fire only. A fought fire. Few hours. Building collapsed. House and office type contents.

[911files]

I'm not a physics expert, but I did see some new HQ video at 911 Blogger tonight that shows the pancake effect quite clearly. The outer area collapsed leaving the center core intact. Of course the core fell shortly after, but definitely no sign of blowing out the support core.

[CptColumbo]

They even use body language in order to demonstrate it was the sound of the floors pancaking on top of one another:


boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

But could they get a "prominent Republican" to do it 110 times in less than a minute?

Cachunk, cachunk.

:)

[Sunstealer]

No it's not a lie.

Your calculations do not consider the 47 core columns running up the middle
of the tower.

You fail to explain how the majority of these columns became disconnected
from the top section, and failed to explain how the material was displaced.

Another huge omission is the lack of explanation of any large mass remaining
intact after crushing the tower.

But why stop there, how do you explain pulverization in mid air? Certainly you
know that resistance is required to break apart the concrete?

Where is the deceleration and subsequent arrest of descent? How can a
smaller mass destroy an object twice its size by gravity alone?

Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday. YOu need to write another paper based on
the video evidence and follow the scientific method. Maybe try adding some
physics in there as well. Could help out.Why don't you do what you have suggested yourself? If you know how it happened and all you need is video evidence then why don't you right a paper? You'd astound the world because it would be freely available for millions of engineers to see how the towers really did fall.

[~enigma~]

No, I want you to quit lying about reading it. You've proven it again in this post:



Treated on pg. 60. Captain Tardio, who stated the above, does not believe there were explosives in the Towers. Neither should you.



Thermate and explosives do not appear capable of "disappearing" 30,000 tons of structure. Is that really the best you can do??
Why are you wasting your time and "breath" arguing with someone that apparently dosen't want to believe anything except his fantasy?

[T.A.M.]

Oh dear, you are wrong

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10770)

Fire only. A fought fire. Few hours. Building collapsed. House and office type contents.

See now there is proof that TF doesn't even know the correct truther talking points.

See TF, if you want to be at least a good old reliable truther, the proper talking point on this topic is,

"Prior to 9/11 no STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPER had ever collapsed from fire alone."

TAM;)

[WildCat]

Heh,got all emotional and forgot to post my questions..
A NYT article published February 2, 2002 named 'A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse;Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken To
Scrapyards' highlights engineers attempting to save WTC steel from scrap yards and the long trip to asia.

According to the article,there was evidence of steel melting.
(From Article)
"extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures. "
I can't find verification nor any full tests done on these compounds.
I believe this is what's known as eutectic melting.

1.Could this have been linked in any way to the cores collapse?
Doubtful, it likely happened in the debris pile in the weeks and months following the collapse.

2.Ditto.,or has this been discredited?
"Another crumpled steel member set aside at a Keasbey, N.J., scrapyard has markings clearly showing that it ran on the east face of the north tower from the 92nd to the 95th floor, in the center of one impact zone. Pieces of steel have also been found that were apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations."
Once again, eutectic melting.

3.Did the floors in the top third collapse before it began toppling?
Probbaly not.

Was the toppling structure essentially hollow?
Any building is essentially hollow, wouldn't be much use for much of anything if it was mostly solid. See the pyramids of Egypt.

Thanks for your time.Sorry,no link.I'm green still. :-)
Peace
Welcome!

[Turbofan]

See now there is proof that TF doesn't even know the correct truther talking points.

See TF, if you want to be at least a good old reliable truther, the proper talking point on this topic is,

"Prior to 9/11 no STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPER had ever collapsed from fire alone."

TAM;)

Sorry, I keep forgetting most of the people on this forum have basic
logic skills and can't figure out that we're talking about Skyscrapers.

P.S. For that other guy that keeps crying:

Your government also went to war based on lies claiming they had
absolute proof of WOMD, and absolute proof that OBL was behind 9/11.

To this day they have not produced their unmistakable hard evidence.

Keep swallowing...it seems you like that sort of thing.

[Alt+F4]

Your government also went to war based on lies claiming they had absolute proof of WOMD, and absolute proof that OBL was behind 9/11.

I know, crazy isn't it?

The same government that could pull off 9/11, a nefarious conspiracy of epic proportion couldn't be bothered to take some of our own weapons of mass destruction, scrap off the serial numbers and bury them somewhere in Iraq.

Bush is a fool!

[DGM]

Oh Turbofan:

Some of us are still waiting for your explanation (and then handing you your arse) on this statement;

Are you that far out of the latest excuse? You know that pancaking
cannot occure because of the core columns right? Seems like most
people here forget those 47 massive core columns...

(If I were you I'd retract and cut your loses.)

[dtugg]

TF obviously has no idea what he's talking about. After all, he believes in one of the stupidest ideas in the history of the world (Pentagon flyover).

[Bananaman]

Turbomoron:
Sorry, I keep forgetting most of the people on this forum have basic
logic skills

Considering logic is a foriegn language to you I don't know how you have the sheer nerve to keep writing this stuff. Moronity is being taken to a newer level every time you post. It's mindboggling.

Bananaman.

[Corsair 115]

Hi guys.Please forgive my intrusion.I hope you guys understand that there are many of us laymen out here that belong to neither camp,we do not subscribe to the brain dead "for us or against us" deal. Are you agnostic on the question of whether the U.S. landed men on the Moon or not? One does not have to be an astronomer, engineer, or physicist to accept the legitimacy of the Apollo landings considering the vast amount of evidence in favour of the landings being real. A simple application of logic to the situation demonstrates the untenable position of "the landings were faked" argument, let alone the mountains of evidence.

9/11 is exactly the same kind of situation.

[R.Mackey]

Heh,got all emotional and forgot to post my questions..
A NYT article published February 2, 2002 named 'A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse;Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken To
Scrapyards' highlights engineers attempting to save WTC steel from scrap yards and the long trip to asia.

Welcome to the Forum. We've answered this question literally hundreds of times here, but since nobody else gave it to you straight, I will.


According to the article,there was evidence of steel melting.
(From Article)
"extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures. "
I can't find verification nor any full tests done on these compounds.

There is a very subtle, often misunderstood, but important point -- it is not evidence of steel melting. It is evidence of a steel-sulfur eutectic melting. What happened, as it turned out, is that these pieces of steel were attacked by a sulfurous compound, probably in the form of weak sulfuric acid, that changed the steel. And that is what melted, not steel.

This compound is called a eutectic because its melting temperature is lower than either of its constituents. The example I use is of ice and salt. If you mush salt and ice together, the combination melts, and it does so at a lower temperature than either ice or salt by itself.

This steel was thoroughly examined by a team led by Dr. Barnett of WPI and was reported in several peer-reviewed papers. Here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6m00uuhvn16tnu2/) is one example.

What they found is that the melting temperature of the eutectic was well below 1000oC, which is easily attainable in the fire, either before or after collapse.

One such piece -- exactly one -- was found in the rubble of the Towers, but the geometry indicated it didn't happen until after collapse. For this reason, it is highly unlikely that the effect in any way contributed to the collapses.

We can't be 100% sure, though. In WTC 7, it is vaguely possible that some long-term exposure (acid rain, battery acid, something like that) over a period of years formed the eutectic, which was then more susceptible to the fire, but given the very few places this was seen -- and the lack of fracture associated with these pieces -- the likelihood is slim indeed.

There was absolutely no vaporizing of steel or eutectics at any time. This is simply poor reporting of results such as those I linked above. Go to the source at WPI if you need confirmation.


3.Did the floors in the top third collapse before it began toppling?Was the toppling structure essentially hollow?

No. The floors remained attached until after the collapse was well underway. This is demonstrated by pulling in of exterior columns at the instant of initiation, as explained in depth by NIST in NCSTAR1-6. The structure was largely open space, as is any structure, but it was not hollow as there were only local floor failures prior to the onset of collapse.

[beachnut]

Sorry, I keep forgetting most of the people on this forum have basic logic skills and can't figure out that we're talking about Skyscrapers.. Personal attacks like Balsamo does all the time. This is 9/11 stuff, get some.

P.S. For that other guy that keeps crying: Personal attack, you have studied Balsamo too carefully. 9/11; get on topic.

Your government also went to war based on lies claiming they had absolute proof of WOMD, and absolute proof that OBL was behind 9/11. 9/11, not Iraq and the idiot Saddam. 9/11! You need to keep on target.

To this day they have not produced their unmistakable hard evidence. 9/11, not Iraq; you talked of logic?

Keep swallowing...it seems you like that sort of thing. You are the one who can't figure out 9/11.

You have been fooled by 9/11 truth, no one was fooled by Bush; notice his ratings.

Ironic, you believe the lies of p4t and 9/11 truth, yet most Americans never believed Bush. Irony2

[psikeyhackr]

ROFLMAO

The top of the south tower is why I searched NCSTAR1 for "center of mass" and "center of gravity". Center of mass is only used 4 times in one report and refers to that of the airliner. Center of gravity is used 6 times and is only applied to individual components used in the computer simulation.

Why didn't the top of the south tower fall down the side?

That will have to be an eternal mystery as long as you buy the official conspiracy theory.

:D :D

Mackey's treatment is easier to understand, as the math involved is relatively simple trigonometry. Simply put, for the upper block to topple over in the way many truthers claim that it should have, the center of mass of the block would have to be displaced outside the tower's outline (absent a horizontally applied force large enough to push it off sideways), and the location of the point about which it is hinging makes this geometrically impossible.

But wouldn't that way off center of mass cause that block to crush one side of the intact tower more than the other? Wouldn't that cause it to tilt even more and consequently crush that side even more until...

Haven't you ever stacked cardboard boxes until the bottom ones started getting crushed on one side? Like this is so difficult to understand. JEEZ!

psik

[rwguinn]

ROFLMAO

The top of the south tower is why I searched NCSTAR1 for "center of mass" and "center of gravity". Center of mass is only used 4 times in one report and refers to that of the airliner. Center of gravity is used 6 times and is only applied to individual components used in the computer simulation.

Why didn't the top of the south tower fall down the side?

That will have to be an eternal mystery as long as you buy the official conspiracy theory.

:D :D

psik

Is that supposed to make sense?
Anybody goT a "duh!" to English translator?

[psikeyhackr]

Is that supposed to make sense?
Anybody goT a "duh!" to English translator?

It possibly might not make sense to a moron.

A 10,000 page report about the supposed gravitational collapses of two buildings weighing more than 400,000 tons and "center of mass" and "center of gravity" are only mentioned 10 times and never about the 20 degree tilt of at least 25 stories of the top of one building.

Totally amazing actually.

psik

Do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Grizzly Bear]

Why didn't the top of the south tower fall down the side?

<snip>

Haven't you ever stacked cardboard boxes until the bottom ones started getting crushed on one side? Like this is so difficult to understand. JEEZ!

psik

The day cardboard boxes become a valid comparison to a skyscraper will be the day pigs fly :)

[Quad4_72]

It possibly might not make sense to a moron.

A 10,000 page report about the supposed gravitational collapses of two buildings weighing more than 400,000 tons and "center of mass" and "center of gravity" are only mentioned 10 times and never about the 20 degree tilt of at least 25 stories of the top of one building.

Totally amazing actually.

psik

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you?

[dtugg]

You do realize that they primarily studied the collapse initiation, right? The conclusion of how it initiated is irrefutable and supported by video evidence. Do you even know what the explanation is?

Studying and modeling the collapses after they started until the roof hit the ground was far too complicated and difficult in addition to being unnecessary. Is is proven that there is no way that the collapses could have stopped after they started. This makes perfect sense because no building is designed to withstand millions of pounds crashing down upon it.

[Quad4_72]

Haven't you ever stacked cardboard boxes until the bottom ones started getting crushed on one side? Like this is so difficult to understand. JEEZ!

psik
You do realize that the towers were held together by nuts, bolts, welds, etc right? There was no cardboard used in any of the structural supports...

[R.Mackey]

To psik, you have to actually read the whole NIST Report, not just NCSTAR1. NIST discusses the tilting action and "hinge" of WTC 2 in NCSTAR1-6D, in particular Chapter 3.3, and 4.2.5. This report also contains similar investigation for WTC 1. The simulation also provides an estimate of forces on the upper block after it tilts, which put it in no position whatsoever to topple. Figure 4-89 of NCSTAR1-6D is particularly relevant to your question.

As for why it cannot topple off, in broader strokes, I offer my own summary in my whitepaper, on pp. 47-48, 91-93,104-105, and 250-254.

This is a solved issue. You are simply unfamiliar with the explanations -- they do indeed exist, and are simple besides.

[Alt+F4]

Haven't you ever stacked cardboard boxes until the bottom ones started getting crushed on one side? Like this is so difficult to understand. JEEZ!

Please tell me that you didn't compare WTC 1 & 2 to a stack of cardboard boxes?

[dtugg]

Perhaps psikeyhackr is actually Richard "Cardboard" Gage?

[T.A.M.]

Haven't you ever stacked cardboard boxes until the bottom ones started getting crushed on one side? Like this is so difficult to understand. JEEZ!

psik

lol...

Funny how all those skyscrapers remain standing, without being "crushed on one side". I guess they aren't made of cardboard boxes.

TAM;)

[LONGTABBER PE]

ROFLMAO

[SIZE="3"]


Haven't you ever stacked cardboard boxes until the bottom ones started getting crushed on one side? Like this is so difficult to understand. JEEZ!

psik

You cant be serious, can you?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Why didn't the top of the south tower fall down the side?

Because there were no rocket boosters attached to the side of the building.

[Confuseling]

I'm going to post the explanation I have in my head for this phenomenon, precisely because I don't understand physics at all. Sometimes I think experts have more trouble thinking like laypeople than other laypeople do. Obviously, I stand ready to be corrected, either because it doesn't make sense, or is flat out wrong...

Imagine you have a cube of some solid substance floating in mid air. It is rotated slightly to one side, like a 'diamond' on a playing card but not the full 45 degrees.

Below this cube are a succession of glass plates. Drop the cube, and the lower edge will strike each plate first, shattering it in a wave away from the point of impact. The rest of the bottom face of the cube travels through where the plate was, but because the plate is shattering already, meets less resistance. There is therefore, with each plate impacted, a greater force pushing upwards on the cube at its lowest point than the rest of the face, and if you push something on an edge, missing its centre of gravity, it rotates: the cube 'self-corrects' back towards being upright.

Trivially, if you substitute a similar arrangement of glass plates for the cube, dropping one on another, the same thing happens. Waves of destruction travel along each plate from the impact point across both impacting surfaces. There is still more solid mass and more resistance at the lowest point, and the rotation arrests.

[stateofgrace]

Haven't you ever stacked cardboard boxes until the bottom ones started getting crushed on one side? Like this is so difficult to understand. JEEZ!

psik

Emm no ,I have never stacked up cardboard boxes until the bottom one started getting crushed to one side, equally so I have never seen anybody try to compare a stack of cardboard boxes to the massive steel framed structures of the world trade centres.

I am sure your cardboard box stacking stuff means something to you but, call me a non stacking cardboard box skeptic, I fail totally to see what on earth it is supposed to mean to anybody else.

Maybe you could explain it all.

[dtugg]

have never seen anybody try to compare a stack of cardboard boxes to the massive steel framed structures of the world trade centres.

Perhaps you've never read Heiwa's madness or seen Gage's demonstration. They do just that. And Hewia is supposedly an engineer and Gage is an architect!

[stateofgrace]

Perhaps you've never read Heiwa's madness. He does just that. And he is supposedly an engineer!

He's on my ignore list and as been for some time, I find it best to ignore such madness. ;)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Perhaps you've never read Heiwa's madness or seen Gage's demonstration. They do just that. And Hewia is supposedly an engineer and Gage is an architect!

That is truly scary

[psikeyhackr]

Emm no ,I have never stacked up cardboard boxes until the bottom one started getting crushed to one side, equally so I have never seen anybody try to compare a stack of cardboard boxes to the massive steel framed structures of the world trade centres.

The WTC was not like the cardboard boxes in that the designers knew the lower portions had to hold more weight and consequently put more steel in the lower portions which we are not being told the distribution of by the way.

but the designers did not anticipate the top 25 stories being tilted at 20 degrees and consequently putting a lot more weight on one side. Hence my comparison to the cardboard. It would mean overstressed support but only on one side of the building.

Too difficult for you to visualize obviously.

psik

[stateofgrace]

The WTC was not like the cardboard boxes in that the designers knew the lower portions had to hold more weight and consequently put more steel in the lower portions which we are not being told the distribution of by the way.

but the designers did not anticipate the top 25 stories being tilted at 20 degrees and consequently putting a lot more weight on one side. Hence my comparison to the cardboard. It would mean overstressed support but only on one side of the building.

Too difficult for you to visualize obviously.

psik

So, basically the construction of the towers did not resemble a stack of cardboard boxes, right?

So why are you trying to get everybody to visualise cardboard boxes?

[dtugg]

I suppose you believe that the other side of the tower should have been able to withstand the massive forces of the tilting action without snapping until it rotated all the way over and the top section fell to the side like a tree, right? Are you one of those twoofers?

[A W Smith]

The WTC was not like the cardboard boxes in that the designers knew the lower portions had to hold more weight and consequently put more steel in the lower portions which we are not being told the distribution of by the way.

but the designers did not anticipate the top 25 stories being tilted at 20 degrees and consequently putting a lot more weight on one side. Hence my comparison to the cardboard. It would mean overstressed support but only on one side of the building.

Too difficult for you to visualize obviously.

psik

its really very simple. This is a floor truss diagram for the 80th floor of the world trade center
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/truss_fig-2-6b.gif



and this is a floor truss detail for almost all the other floors

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/truss_fig-2-6b.gif


Perhaps you can illustrate for us how such a floor truss system can arrest the collapse, genius.

[Quad4_72]

The WTC was not like the cardboard boxes
Correct
in that the designers knew the lower portions had to hold more weight and consequently put more steel in the lower portionsyes...
which we are not being told the distribution of by the way.We aren't? Is someone withholding information about this? Please let me know who it is.
but the designers did not anticipate the top 25 stories being tilted at 20 degrees This is correct again.
and consequently putting a lot more weight on one side.Yep.
Hence my comparison to the cardboard.And there is where you lost your marbles.
It would mean overstressed support but only on one side of the building.Yes again.
Too difficult for you to visualize obviously.Actually it's really not that difficult to Visualize. In fact, there are photos out there showing exactly that.

[Dave Rogers]

Now you're trying to tell me pyroclastic clouds are just some mind trick?

There are certain markers to look out for in truthers, I've found, and the word "pyroclastic" is a classic example. Since the word has no specific relevance to building collapses, whether due to fire, explosives, subsidence, earthquake, wrecking ball, orbital energy weapons, or indeed any other cause except possibly being in the direct path of a high speed gas and debris flow from a volcanic eruption, it's perfectly clear that it can't possibly be a product of the truther's own analysis. For the same reason, it can't possibly relate to a belief that has been subjected to any level of self-critical examination whatsoever. Any use by a truther of the word "pyroclastic" therefore carries the unambiguous message, "I read articles from conspiracist websites, believe them uncritically, and am now repeating them parrot-fashion with no understanding of their meaning". Along with the highly useful TTFL (Time To First Lie) metric for truth movement videos, I think it may be of interest to characterise truthers on JREF in terms of their PTFOP number (Posts To First Obvious Parroting).

Dave

[psikeyhackr]

Actually it's really not that difficult to Visualize. In fact, there are photos out there showing exactly that.

The videos have that top portion of the building disappearing in a cloud of dust and we have no explanation of why it did not continue tilting further and falling down the side.

We aren't? Is someone withholding information about this? Please let me know who it is.

The NIST does not specify the total quantity of concrete in their 10,000 page report. They do not specify the number and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter column panels. Though they tell us the original contract called for 14 types but 2 were upgraded so only 12 were put on the buildings.

And they tell us one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. I don't bother trying to remember how much cargo hit which building. :jaw-dropp

psik

[Turbofan]

its really very simple. This is a floor truss diagram for the 80th floor of the world trade center
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/truss_fig-2-6b.gif



and this is a floor truss detail for almost all the other floors

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/truss_fig-2-6b.gif


Perhaps you can illustrate for us how such a floor truss system can arrest the collapse, genius.

It's not the truss that will arrest the collapse, it's the core steel matrix and
perimeter columns combined. Two significant items that you all tend to forget
in this design.

Psik, just wait until the start using the "air space" argument. You know,
the one that implies all buildings are supposed to be filled to prevent furniture
and people from entering. :rolleyes:

[DGM]

It's not the truss that will arrest the collapse, it's the core steel matrix and
perimeter columns combined. Two significant items that you all tend to forget
in this design.

Psik, just wait until the start using the "air space" argument. You know,
the one that implies all buildings are supposed to be filled to prevent furniture
and people from entering. :rolleyes:
After you remove the floor trusses what stops the columns from buckling? Whoops, you forgot about that small problem.

[psikeyhackr]

To psik, you have to actually read the whole NIST Report, not just NCSTAR1. NIST discusses the tilting action and "hinge" of WTC 2 in NCSTAR1-6D, in particular Chapter 3.3, and 4.2.5. This report also contains similar investigation for WTC 1. The simulation also provides an estimate of forces on the upper block after it tilts, which put it in no position whatsoever to topple. Figure 4-89 of NCSTAR1-6D is particularly relevant to your question.

As for why it cannot topple off, in broader strokes, I offer my own summary in my whitepaper, on pp. 47-48, 91-93,104-105, and 250-254.

And they don't bother mentioning the "center of mass" or "center of gravity" or "centroid" of the entire 25 stories in all of that? My that is so intelligent. So what explains why the off center mass didn't crush one side of the building more and tilt more and come down the side?

psik

[Turbofan]

After you remove the floor trusses what stops the columns from buckling? Whoops, you forgot about that small problem.

Oops, the top and bottom section were still connected by perimeter and
core columns (ony a small few were 'cut'). Big problem.

Oops, the top section disappeared before the demo wave descened. Big problem.

Oops, the top section was not found intact at the base of the tower.
Bigger problem.

Where is that 300 feet of tower that crushed 1000 feet all the way down?

How does a smaller mass destroy a larger mass twice the size by gravity alone?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

[beachnut]

Oops, the top and bottom section were still connected by perimeter and
core columns (ony a small few were 'cut'). Big problem.

Oops, the top section disappeared before the demo wave descened. Big problem.

Oops, the top section was not found intact at the base of the tower.
Bigger problem.

Where is that 300 feet of tower that crushed 1000 feet all the way down?

How does a smaller mass destroy a larger mass twice the size by gravity alone?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg
What engineering school did you graduate from?
This is the smoking gun we were waiting for. This is the turning point. Great job!

[GStan]

And they don't bother mentioning the "center of mass" or "center of gravity" or "centroid" of the entire 25 stories in all of that? My that is so intelligent. So what explains why the off center mass didn't crush one side of the building more and tilt more and come down the side?

psik

The lack of intelligence present, in both the questions you ask and in your refusal or inability to comprehend the answers that have been provided to you, is a perfect illustration of why universities do not bestow physics or engineering degrees to people just for having common sense. It does not matter that you believe the top of the tower should continue to topple over to one side. Your belief is completely meaningless unless you can use sound physics and engineering principles to mathematically quantify why your argument is valid.

[twinstead]

Good thing you put all these idiot engineers here on JREF, and of course the ones at NIST and Purdue University, in their place Turbofan. All those ignorant, mindless shills should be thanking you instead of disagreeing with you. Hmrph! They're all a bunch of ingrates.

[DGM]

Oops, the top and bottom section were still connected by perimeter and
core columns (ony a small few were 'cut'). Big problem.

Oops, the top section disappeared before the demo wave descened. Big problem.

Oops, the top section was not found intact at the base of the tower.
Bigger problem.

Where is that 300 feet of tower that crushed 1000 feet all the way down?

How does a smaller mass destroy a larger mass twice the size by gravity alone?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg
Oops, You still haven't addressed the unbraced (from buckling) problem. You should stop now before your foot slides even further down your throat.

[DGM]

duplicate

[GStan]

Good thing you put all these idiot engineers here on JREF, and of course the ones at NIST and Purdue University, in their place Turbofan. All those ignorant, mindless shills should be thanking you instead of disagreeing with you. Hmrph! They're all a bunch of ingrates.

Engineering "for Dummies" Rocks!

[Quad4_72]

The videos have that top portion of the building disappearing in a cloud of dust and we have no explanation of why it did not continue tilting further and falling down the side.

psik

Actually yes, we do have an explanation. Did you read the NIST report? It explains all of that. And could you please provide your calculations as to why to upper portion of the building should have just tilted off to the side?

[Grizzly Bear]

Oops, the top and bottom section were still connected by perimeter and
core columns (ony a small few were 'cut'). Big problem.

<snip>

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg
This is your answer for the relevance of the core columns in relation to the collapse? Really poor...

Oops, the top and bottom section were still connected by perimeter...
Irrelevant, the perimeter columns were designed to take axial loads dealing with wind and horizontal bracing of the core. They were not designed to have 15 to 29 floors worth of building tilt in the horizontal plane, the lateral loads which the top sections of both buildings exerted on the remaining intact perimeter columns far exceeded their capacity to resist it. End of story.

and core columns (only a small few were 'cut')
It doesn't help matters when part of that drywall fire protection is removed from the exterior perimeter of the core. Steel is great on a strength to weight ration, extremely poor performance however under anything exceeding 400oC. Would it kill for you to have to read a few books related to this subject before setting foot in a thread either arguing against or ignoring this?


Oops, the top section disappeared...
That's your opinion, and flatteringly wrong. Intact the entire time? No... Completely vanished into dust, that's one hell of a bold claim. That mass doesn't go anywhere but straight down and it's approximately the same mass whether you have an intact section or a section in the process of breaking up, and no... Your claim that the section being obscured dust = total disappearance of the mass as an assertion of the consequent...

You've been told about this numerous times, although not surprisingly you never learn regardless

[Turbofan]

This is your answer for the relevance of the core columns in relation to the collapse? Really poor...

Is that right? so the core columns all just snapped like a twig when the upper
section of the building tipped?

Your theory says the perimeter columns prevented the top section from
falling off the side?

So, did the core columns inside the top section just magically disappear?




Irrelevant, the perimeter columns were designed to take axial loads dealing with wind and horizontal bracing of the core. They were not designed to have 15 to 29 floors worth of building tilt in the horizontal plane, the lateral loads which the top sections of both buildings exerted on the remaining intact perimeter columns far exceeded their capacity to resist it. End of story.

Really? You are a certified structural engineer? What is your source for this
claim? Please provide it.

once again, where is the mass that squished all of that tower? Should it
not have been intact at ground level?

It doesn't help matters when part of that drywall fire protection is removed from the exterior perimeter of the core. Steel is great on a strength to weight ration, extremely poor performance however under anything exceeding 400oC. Would it kill for you to have to read a few books related to this subject before setting foot in a thread either arguing against or ignoring this?

Office fires for less than an hour huh? The whole building had all the drywall
and fireproofing removed? Pffff...that's funny. A quarter mile of building
and that's your best theory?

Your claim that the section being obscured dust = total disappearance of the mass as an assertion of the consequent...

You've been told about this numerous times, although not surprisingly you never learn regardless

It's NOT obscured by dust. I can clearly see the supporting edge of the
tower! If you scale the building like I did to show the size of the upper
block, it would have shown outside of the dust, or the support structure
must have descended to make up the difference in height.

This is basic logic. You are good at twisting and covering up what photo
and video evidence clearly shows!

[dtugg]

So how did the top part of the building disappear again? A giant laser from outer space, perhaps?

[rwguinn]

So how did the top part of the building vanish disappear again? A giant laser from outer space, perhaps?

Does anybody have good data on the whereabouts of David Copperfield on 09/11/2001?
Or James Randi, for that matter...



:D:D:D:D:D

[Grizzly Bear]

Is that right? so the core columns all just snapped like a twig when the upper section of the building tipped?
The core was intended for gravity loads only. Those exposed to high enough temperatures failed because they lost their integrity and failed via plastic creep in a similar manner to how this (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg) column inside WTC 5 began to fail. Any columns that were not weakened by the fire were overloaded, and their connection snapped. This happened with the majority of the perimeter columns.

Your theory says the perimeter columns prevented the top section from falling off the side?
Because the rotational anchor they served as for the initial rotational movement failed. Again, they were not designed for that magnitude of stress in anything but a vertical load. They were specifically designed to keep the tower laterally stable for the building and wind loads.



What is your source for this claim? Please provide it.

The wall consisted of 236 columns, 59 on each face from the 10th ~ 107th floor.
Each column was a welded square box section with external size of 356 mm (14 in.).
Adjacent columns, at a spacing of 660 mm (26 in.), were connected at each floor by steel spandrel plates of 1.32 m (52 in.) high.
The wall functioned like a square tube, providing resistance to the combined effect of lateral wind and gravity loads.
[/list]
Source (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm)
Additional information regarding the implementation of the design (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi5.pdf)


once again, where is the mass that squished all of that tower? Should it not have been intact at ground level?
No


Office fires for less than an hour huh?
Fire's effect on steel is a function of temperature, not time. From 400oC and up steel rapidly weakens until it has less than 10 percent of it's original load capacity at 1,000oC.

The whole building had all the drywall and fireproofing removed? Pffff...that's funny. A quarter mile of building
and that's your best theory?
Did I say anything about fireproofing being globally removed from the entire building? This ought to sound good... please explain how you derived this assumption from my last post. This should be interesting. (HINT: the post was about the Impact region)

[A W Smith]

It's not the truss that will arrest the collapse, it's the core steel matrix and
perimeter columns combined. Two significant items that you all tend to forget
in this design.


Combined?
Combined?!!!
WTF are they combined with genius??
The floor trusses!!
Without them neither of them could stand!

[3bodyproblem]

And they don't bother mentioning the "center of mass" or "center of gravity" or "centroid" of the entire 25 stories in all of that? My that is so intelligent. So what explains why the off center mass didn't crush one side of the building more and tilt more and come down the side?

psik


The path of least resistence has bee shown time and time again to be directly down. The tilt, relative the size of the upper section, did not move the center of mass outside the perimeter columns. It simply couldn't have toppled, if you don't "believe" this you still have the video evidence that proves it.

This idea that the upper section should have toppled or slid off isn't consistent with your idea that the "core matrix" (an interesting term in and of itself) as you put it, was infinitely stronger than the upper section. If it had been that strong it would have simply skewered the upper block and kept it from tilting or sliding off.

[Turbofan]

The path of least resistence has bee shown time and time again to be directly down. The tilt, relative the size of the upper section, did not move the center of mass outside the perimeter columns. It simply couldn't have toppled, if you don't "believe" this you still have the video evidence that proves it.

This idea that the upper section should have toppled or slid off isn't consistent with your idea that the "core matrix" (an interesting term in and of itself) as you put it, was infinitely stronger than the upper section. If it had been that strong it would have simply skewered the upper block and kept it from tilting or sliding off.


Wait a minute...

:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

again...


The path of least resistence has bee shown time and time again to be directly down

:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

Air is more resistive than 47 core columns, and a couple 'hundred perimieter
columns huh guys?

:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

[boloboffin]

Never wrestle with a pig.

[Turbofan]

Combined?
Combined?!!!
WTF are they combined with genius??
The floor trusses!!
Without them neither of them could stand!

Hey smart guy, you do know the floors are more than one dimensional right?

Please explain where the top section went

or

how the core columns removed themselves from the upper section, and
bottom section to allow the top to fall down so quickly.

[WildCat]

Wait a minute...

:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

again...



:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

Air is more resistive than 47 core columns, and a couple 'hundred perimieter
columns huh guys?

:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:
No, moving 20 stories of WTC 200 feet off to the side takes more energy than it needs to crush through a floor which was only designed to handle 300 lbs/sq. ft. or so.

But I'll let you get to work on that math you promised in the other thread. :rolleyes:

[Homeland Insurgency]

The path of least resistence has bee shown time and time again to be directly down. The tilt, relative the size of the upper section, did not move the center of mass outside the perimeter columns. It simply couldn't have toppled, if you don't "believe" this you still have the video evidence that proves it.

This idea that the upper section should have toppled or slid off isn't consistent with your idea that the "core matrix" (an interesting term in and of itself) as you put it, was infinitely stronger than the upper section. If it had been that strong it would have simply skewered the upper block and kept it from tilting or sliding off.

Was the upper block at the time of the tilting totally disconnected from the rest of the building? Was it not hanging on anywhere by any columns?

[Grizzly Bear]

Was the upper block at the time of the tilting totally disconnected from the rest of the building? Was it not hanging on anywhere by any columns?
Would it matter once the system is no longer acting vertically? The columns as has been explained already were intended for gravity loads and kept in consideration the lateral loads that had to be account for in bracing and wind loads. Buildings are not naturally designed so that they can hold together as a system when it flexes beyond its breaking point, the bolt connections simply were not made for it.

Hey smart guy, you do know the floors are more than one dimensional right?
And... they were the components which transferred lateral bracing to the core. What the heck did that have to do with what he asked you anyway?


Please explain where the top section went
It ended up somewhere in that rubble pile after progressively collapsing the rest of the tower. ;)

[3bodyproblem]

Wait a minute...

:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

again...



:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

Air is more resistive than 47 core columns, and a couple 'hundred perimieter
columns huh guys?

:big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big: :big:

The force due to gravity is straight down, it has no lateral component. The air doesn't have any appreciable resistance to lateral movement, gravity does. The upper most floor of the lower "block" would have to exert a force great enough to deflect the entire upper "block" before any deflection could occur. This is very simple physics. I'm not sure why you would even be thinking of air resistance, or the lack of it, in light of the force of (due to) gravity.

[WildCat]

The force due to gravity is straight down, it has no lateral component. The air doesn't have any appreciable resistance to lateral movement, gravity does. The upper most floor of the lower "block" would have to exert a force great enough to deflect the entire upper "block" before any deflection could occur. This is very simple physics. I'm not sure why you would even be thinking of air resistance, or the lack of it, in light of the force of (due to) gravity.
It's like claiming that it's impossible to shoot a deer, because the slug would choose the path of least resistance and go around.

[3bodyproblem]

It's like claiming that it's impossible to shoot a deer, because the slug would choose the path of least resistance and go around.


Lol, don't confuse them, the slug has imparted momentum from a chemical reation causing it to move perpendicular to the force due to gravity. Let's just say we dropped the bullet from a height above the deer and it goes around.

[cludgie]

Lol, don't confuse them, the slug has imparted momentum from a chemical reation causing it to move perpendicular to the force due to gravity. Let's just say we dropped the bullet from a height above the deer and it goes around.

Or perhaps TF could send us film of the experiment where he drops an anvil from several inches above his head. By his reckoning the anvil should leap sideways as it reaches the point of contact with his head and fall unhindered to the floor and leave him otherwise untouched.

[Dave Rogers]

Oops, the top section was not found intact at the base of the tower.
Bigger problem.

Turbofan, I'm not even going to bother pointing out what's wrong with this comment, I'm just going to say that it is without doubt the most idiotic statement I have ever seen on this or any other discussion board, and I wish you the best of luck in this month's Stundies.

Dave

[UNLoVedRebel]

So turbofan pulled the "pyroclastic flow" card, huh? That's the worst argument I've seen since Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort tried to prove creation with a banana. Just imagine if NIST had compared the collapses to a ****ing volcano. One thing's for sure, I'd be writing a letter to my department of commerce.

[T.A.M.]

Not only the volcano card, but also the "it should have fallen to the side" card for the top section of the tower.

science for dummies at its best.

TAM:)

[Turbofan]

Or perhaps TF could send us film of the experiment where he drops an anvil from several inches above his head. By his reckoning the anvil should leap sideways as it reaches the point of contact with his head and fall unhindered to the floor and leave him otherwise untouched.

YOu all better run out and grab "Logic for dummies" and/or, "Using your
eyes when watching videos for dummies".

You all fail to understand that nothing was "DROPPED" onto the bottom
section.

Remember the core and perimeter columns? You know, the core that
runs up the top portion of the building as well? Only a few were "cut".

Nothing dropped. Nothing dropped. Nothing dropped.

How did the top section disappear with core columns connected before
the support structure descended?

[3bodyproblem]

YOu all better run out and grab "Logic for dummies" and/or, "Using your
eyes when watching videos for dummies".

You all fail to understand that nothing was "DROPPED" onto the bottom
section.

Remember the core and perimeter columns? You know, the core that
runs up the top portion of the building as well? Only a few were "cut".

Nothing dropped. Nothing dropped. Nothing dropped.

How did the top section disappear with core columns connected before
the support structure descended?

collapse: 1. The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.

Try grabbing a dictionary.

Everything fell down. Everything fell down. Everything fell down.
or
Everything dropped. Everything dropped. Everything dropped.

I ask you, if you fall down do your feet have to come off the ground? That's the logic you are presenting.

To save myself a response to the post I know is coming: A person only falls forward or backward if their center mass mas moves outside their "footprint", which is common due to the small amount of area our feet occupy. In the case of a building, the chances of the CM moving outside the "footprint" are virtually impossible.

[T.A.M.]

Using TF's reasoning, your feet would have to disappear, and your legs fall to the ground, for you to "Drop".

Oh, and incidentally, TF (I have you on ignore, but I see your comments through others reposting them), saying something 3 times in a row doesn't make it right...;)

TAM:)

[psikeyhackr]

To psik, you have to actually read the whole NIST Report, not just NCSTAR1. NIST discusses the tilting action and "hinge" of WTC 2 in NCSTAR1-6D, in particular Chapter 3.3, and 4.2.5. This report also contains similar investigation for WTC 1. The simulation also provides an estimate of forces on the upper block after it tilts, which put it in no position whatsoever to topple. Figure 4-89 of NCSTAR1-6D is particularly relevant to your question.

The second paragraph of section 3.3 on PDF page 198 says this:
The WTC 2 core model was restrained in two horizontal directions at every floor level to represent the lateral restraint of the exterior walls. Without the lateral restraints, the WTC 2 core model would tilt significantly, due to the extensive impact damage to the southeast part of the core. The WTC 1 core model was not restrained in the horizontal directions at floor levels.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6D.pdf

Who was there to VERIFY any of that?

The point of interest is this:

due to the extensive impact damage to the southeast part of the core.

Now the NIST claims the fuselage went into the corner of the core but FEMA and the BBC say the fuselage missed it. Possibly scraped the edge.

Altering Flight 175's Path

Whereas NIST admits some of the liberties it took in adjusting its models' parameters to fit the desired result, such as their substitution of cases B and D for the more accurate cases A and C described above, it hides others.

NIST's assumption contradicts FEMA's estimate of Flight 175's trajectory, as well as the simple analysis of the plane's path through the building based on the entry and exit points of the fuselage. The illustration to the right shows the South Tower's impact gash, a video frame showing a fragment of fuselage exiting the Tower's east corner, and the path connecting the centers of the entry and exit holes. That trajectory left only the left wing and engine to do nearly all of the alleged damage to the Tower's core structure.
http://911research.com/essays/nist/index.html#altering

So we need to wade through this old news?

How do they compute how much energy of the plane shook the building and did not do structural damage without knowing the distribution of mass? They admitted it was necessary but don't provide it and we are supposed to BELIEVE their damage estimates. ROFL

On the matter of weight distribution of the towers the NIST says this:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5D%20Ceilings.pdf page 74

So why are we supposed to trust their claims of "extensive impact damage to the southeast part of the core". They can't even tell us the distribution of steel through the building. Or the total amount of concrete.

Everything is solved if you BELIEVE NIST male bovine excrement. But there is so much missing information and contradictory nonsense about it. And we must not forget the towers were 70% air by volume. That is REAL IMPORTANT!

psik

[Sunstealer]

That trajectory left only the left wing and engine to do nearly all of the alleged damage to the Tower's core structure. What's so unbelievable about that? If one understands how aircraft wings are built one can understand that they aren't flimsy structures. Similarly engines are very heavy due to nickel based super alloys that are used in the hot regions. I've held titanium compressor disks for the RB199 (UK Tornado military aircraft) and they are damn heavy yet compared to the types of engine that are typical for 2 engined passenger jets they are tiny. The kinetic energy of a wing and an engine travelling at 500mph must be huge. You could find the weight of the relevant engine online and work it out.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/civilaviation1949-2006cutaways/images/7827/425x246/boeing-767-400er-cutaway.jpg

[twinstead]

Everything is solved if you BELIEVE NIST male bovine excrement. But there is so much missing information and contradictory nonsense about it. And we must not forget the towers were 70% air by volume. That is REAL IMPORTANT!
psik

Well, a whole BUNCH of pretty qualified people around the world, even those who have a nit pick here and a nit pick there with the NIST report, have no problem with its general findings, namely the plane crash and resulting uncontrolled fires brought down the towers.

Are they all idiots?

[ElMondoHummus]

Okay, this point is silly:



due to the extensive impact damage to the southeast part of the core.

Now the NIST claims the fuselage went into the corner of the core but FEMA and the BBC say the fuselage missed it. Possibly scraped the edge.


FEMA's analysis was an early one, never intended to the the final, definitive word on the event. The FEMA BPS's purpose was to identify issues deserving further study, and the very nature of being an initial report presumes later correction. The NIST investigation was the definitive study, proceeding from issues noted in the FEMA investigation and conducting futher, deeper evaluations of the evidence. FEMA's investigation is not equivalent to NIST's; again for emphasis, theirs was an initial investigation. This is made clear in NCSTAR1:

Immediately following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers began planning a building performance study of the disaster. The week of October 7, as soon as the rescue and search efforts ceased, the Building Performance Study Team went to the site and began its assessment. This was to be a brief effort, as the study team consisted of experts who largely volunteered their time away from other personal commitments. The Building Performance Study Team issued its report in May 2002, fulfilling its goal "to determine probable failure mechanisms and to identify areas of future investigation that could lead to practical measures for improving the damage resistance of buildings against such unforeseen events".

On August 21, 2002, with funding from the U.S. Congress through FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster. On October 1, 2002, the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231) was signed into law. (A copy of the Public Law is included in Appendix A). The NIST WTC Investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act.

(My bolding for emphasis)

Why you and other truthers try to make it out as if FEMA and NIST contradict each other without pointing out 1. That NIST in fact used FEMA's findings as a starting point, and 2. That NIST's Report and FEMA BPS were two points along the same continuum, with the NIST one being the more detailed, deeper study is beyond me. You actually get it backwards when you do that. The NIST report updates and corrects the FEMA BPS, not the other way around. You ignore that the authors of the FEMA report were given credits in the NIST one, and that there is no contradiction between the reports; there is only correction and updating of information in the FEMA BPS based on the deeper investigation conducted by NIST.

Instead of bending over backwards to make it look like FEMA disproves NISTs point, why don't you find real issues with the NCSTARs? Mackey did? So did James Quintierre. Arup/University of Edinburgh's fire safety and engineering teams also disagree with elements of the NIST report. The difference is that all those individuals work from reality, and don't misunderstand, misidentify, or misrepresent points to state their differences.

[3bodyproblem]

And we must not forget the towers were 70% air by volume. That is REAL IMPORTANT!

psik


And the fires in the upper section burned out of control as evidenced by photos.

So the air became hot in the location of the fires.

There were no open windows in the upper section.

As we know, hot air rises.

And filled the upper section.

Making it, lighter than air.

So why didn't NIST investigate the upper section floating away? THIS IS REAL IMPORTANT!

I hope this isn't the next line of reasoning...

[Grizzly Bear]

YOu all better run out and grab "Logic for dummies" and/or, "Using your eyes when watching videos for dummies".

Has this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4257178&postcount=194) escaped you? You seem to imply having a wealth of understanding in the structural engineering of the tower. Please feel free to offer your criticism.

Remember the core and perimeter columns? You know, the core that runs up the top portion of the building as well?
What about them? When the core failed that was it. It only needed to fail in the impact region.

The core columns were for gravity loads, not for contests to see how much of a building can be torqued over to the side before we break it. Those connections holding the column sections together aren't all designed for massive moment forces...


Only a few were "cut".
What happens when several other columns suffer the combined effects of partial impact damage and fire? What happens to those undamaged by the initial impact and then exposed to temperatures exceeding 400 - 600oC?



How did the top section disappear with core columns connected before the support structure descended?
By the time the upper sections of both towers "disappeared" as you put it, what ever columns remained intact failed at the connections, and whatever was sufficiently weakened by fire failed through creep. Your contention almost sounds like Heiwa territory where he contends that the core columns should have sliced right through the floors like a hot knife in butter. It's a shame structures aren't bui;t specifically to act that way

[psikeyhackr]

Well, a whole BUNCH of pretty qualified people around the world, even those who have a nit pick here and a nit pick there with the NIST report, have no problem with its general findings, namely the plane crash and resulting uncontrolled fires brought down the towers.

Are they all idiots?

There is one other possibility besides being idiots.

Can you figure out that a skyscraper must hold up its own weight?

So why don't you want to know the distribution of steel? Is that too complicated for you? Why don't you quit worrying about QUALIFIED PEOPLE and understand some grade school physics for yourself? Don't you think you are smart enough to handle it?

psik

[Turbofan]

Has this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4257178&postcount=194) escaped you? You seem to imply having a wealth of understanding in the structural engineering of the tower. Please feel free to offer your criticism.


What about them? When the core failed that was it. It only needed to fail in the impact region.

The core columns were for gravity loads, not for contests to see how much of a building can be torqued over to the side before we break it. Those connections holding the column sections together aren't all designed for massive moment forces...



What happens when several other columns suffer the combined effects of partial impact damage and fire? What happens to those undamaged by the initial impact and then exposed to temperatures exceeding 400 - 600oC?




By the time the upper sections of both towers "disappeared" as you put it, what ever columns remained intact failed at the connections, and whatever was sufficiently weakened by fire failed through creep. Your contention almost sounds like Heiwa territory where he contends that the core columns should have sliced right through the floors like a hot knife in butter. It's a shame structures aren't bui;t specifically to act that way

blah, blabedy, blah, ha...

You've got nothing but guesses, theories, assumptions.

Like I said, have a look at the video evidence which support the research
of Gage and Jones, and totally contradicts anything you have typed.

[Grizzly Bear]

There is one other possibility besides being idiots.
Yes every single one of the hundreds of thousands of non speaker-uppers must be "in-on-it", threatened, or scared ***less if they aren't such idiots to believe the NIST reports right? Of course if any thing regarding intimidation were correct, it certainly doesn't seem experts like Richard Gage has been "taken care of" so I suppose the choices must be narrowed down the first two. Thats a pretty large chunk of the profession staying silent for something that was so obviously suspicious for the last 7 years.

Can you figure out that a skyscraper must hold up its own weight?
Yes, it must hold up its own weight, and normally it's own weight is a reasonably static load. It's load is also typically vertical the way it is supposed to be with the normal design considerations for wind loads and lateral bracing in place.

No individual part of the structure is designed to sustain an entire section failing in that fashion.

[Grizzly Bear]

blah, blabedy, blah, ha...
My spider senses are tingling, I sense a dodge...


You've got nothing but guesses, theories, assumptions.
I base all of my statements of known information collected on the construction of the towers. I refer to case studies (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm) and any relevant information (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AISI/wtcaisi5.pdf) I can find on how structures were built. I gathered the data regarding fire's effects on steel from the AISC steel specifications (http://www.aisc.org/Template.cfm?Section=2005_Specification&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27871). Feel free to use the same sources for whatever weird claims you'd like to point out for me...

You have a rather interesting standard for guesses & theories, then again, I should expect nothing less from an individual such as yourself who did not even bother to read the information I provided at your request.


Like I said, have a look at the video evidence which support the research of Gage and Jones, and totally contradicts anything you have typed.
I see the video evidence and it looks nothing like anything those two peopleare sporking out. If Gage had actually applied the knowledge he had correctly instead of screwing around with card board boxes to model the towers he might actually find a totally different conclusion. But of coarse unlike what any responsible and competent architect would do he immediately assumes a first time in history fallacy, and completely ignores the legitimate validity of steels instability in fire. These are basic skills you learn in class, and in studio. And Jones has yet to gain my attention given some of his past claims. That you look to Gage is a signal to me that you haven't bothered to look up analysis from other experts who have as well studied the topic.

[3bodyproblem]

Can you figure out that a skyscraper must hold up its own weight?

psik

I'm curious, why do you think it would be such a big issue to reinforce an already intact structure to accomodate a bank vault?

[twinstead]

There is one other possibility besides being idiots.

Can you figure out that a skyscraper must hold up its own weight?

So why don't you want to know the distribution of steel? Is that too complicated for you? Why don't you quit worrying about QUALIFIED PEOPLE and understand some grade school physics for yourself? Don't you think you are smart enough to handle it?


So all it takes is grade school physics. Interesting. Well, the next time I need some surgery I'll be sure to have my plumber brush up on his grade school biology and let him do it cheaper.

Yea. There is one other possibility besides being they're all idiots; every flippin' qualified structural engineer and physicist on Earth who has studied the collapses and doesn't agree with you must be 'in on it'.

Got it.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Hey TF, did explosives cause the e-ring of the pentagon to collapse too? There was, you know, "pyroclastic flow."

4pIbPadTMVU

[beachnut]

There is one other possibility besides being idiots.

Can you figure out that a skyscraper must hold up its own weight?

So why don't you want to know the distribution of steel? Is that too complicated for you? Why don't you quit worrying about QUALIFIED PEOPLE and understand some grade school physics for yourself? Don't you think you are smart enough to handle it?

psik

Relax, you have the support of less than 0.008 percent of all engineers. You are wrong, they are wrong. If you had the evidence and ability to make this public and be correct, you would have a Pulitzer Prize like Woodward and Bernstein did on Nixon, you would be the 9/11 one.

So you do not understand physics at any level to comprehend the collapse of the WTC. The chief engineer, Robertson, does, and he thinks your ideas are absurd or worse. Did you miss his comments on your massive research project which failed and allowed you to draw the wrong conclusion?

Good things about being wrong on 9/11:
- a few fringe engineers are on your side.
- Small groups are the best.

[psikeyhackr]

Relax, you have the support of less than 0.008 percent of all engineers. You are wrong, they are wrong. If you had the evidence and ability to make this public and be correct, you would have a Pulitzer Prize like Woodward and Bernstein did on Nixon, you would be the 9/11 one.

What percentage of engineers haven't said a damn thing about it?

Are you claiming that every engineer has made his/her opinion known?

In almost 2 years I haven't had one person specify where the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report specifies the total quantity of concrete in the towers. I think the unresponsive engineers out number the two camps.

Since when did physics give a damn about democracy anyway? Do you expect me to be impressed by your statistic? Economists don't report how much Americans lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year. Does that mean the cars don't depreciate?

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

I have had one PhD economist tell me that I am correct and the text books are wrong and another one called me a loony. So much for democracy.

psik

[dtugg]

In almost 2 years I haven't had one person specify where the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report specifies the total quantity of concrete in the towers. I think the unresponsive engineers out number the two camps.

psik

Because you are probably the only person in the world who cares about the exact quantity of concrete in the towers. How come you are not also crying about the amount of glass, aluminum, drywall, carpeting, tile, furniture, ect? Since concrete played no part in the structural integrity of the towers, mass and distribution of these things is just as important for your physics problem. And by the way, since you are one of the twoofers who believes that WTC2 should have fell over sideways, your physics/engineering skillz are obviously nonexistent.

[beachnut]

... In almost 2 years I haven't had one person specify where the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report specifies the total quantity of concrete in the towers. I think the unresponsive engineers out number the two camps.
...
psik
You have less than 0.008 percent of all engineers on your side of woo. It is your problem you have aligned with an extremely small fringe group of engineers who have no idea what happen on 9/11 after given the evidence on a platter. A masters degree in Engineering helps people to understand the things that have you spoofed, but amazingly for most, just a grade school education is needed to understand 9/11.

The concrete is light weight about 4 inches thick in the floor pans. You can find enough information to estimate the weight of each floor. If you want I can give you a truther approved value of a WTC floor at 2,623,966.94 kg. I think this counts the core. I thing 11 floor not including the core are about 25,000,000 pounds.

Did you know a floor in the WTC would fail with 25,000,000 pounds?

What concrete are you talking about?


The truth is you lack support from engineers who understand the WTC. The chief structural engineer on the WTC can clear up your doubts if you would listen to him and understand. Are you searching for the truth, or what?

This is not a statistic, it is a fact you can only find less than 0.008 percent of all engineers to support the ideas of 9/11 truth. I don't care if you found all the engineers except me to support your failed ideas on 9/11, you would still be wrong, you are right; being right is no a voting matter.



No matter how much support you think you have on the failed ideas of 9/11 truth, they are wrong. Do you want a paper on the weights done by a truther type engineer, who has failed to make his "ample" evidence materialize to support his 9/11 truth petition signing?

Why is 9/11 truth research deficient?

[3bodyproblem]

I noticed this thread has died. There's no doubt in my mind why this is so. Had it lived any longer I would have had to eat my own words. There's no ligitimate excuse for it to continue other than ignorance. I'm glad people here have the wherewithall to know better than to continue the futile. Nails in the coffin.

[Bell]

Just let me ask... how could this...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7bfd686f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9463)

... be arrested by this...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7b2e709f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9462)

[stateofgrace]

In almost 2 years I haven't had one person specify where the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report specifies the total quantity of concrete in the towers. I think the unresponsive engineers out number the two camps.



I am yet to meet a truther who can tell me exactly what structural properties the "undetermined quantity" of concrete had in supporting the towers. Maybe you will be the first.

I will help you and start your reply,

“It is completely irrelevant how much concrete was inside the towers because the concrete inside these buildings played absolutely no part in……… < please insert the correct answer >"

When you are ready.

[Dog Town]

I noticed this thread has died. There's no doubt in my mind why this is so. Had it lived any longer I would have had to eat my own words. There's no ligitimate excuse for it to continue other than ignorance. I'm glad people here have the wherewithall to know better than to continue the futile. Nails in the coffin.


So you bumped it? Most peculiar, indeed!

[3bodyproblem]

So you bumped it? Most peculiar, indeed!

I suppose I did. Indeed.

Actually it was just due to sporadic interest, I was a little more concerned with the economy than this thread over the last month or so. A little too much egg nog and curiosity got the better of me. It would have been truly a Christmas miracle to have opened the thread and seen psihack or Turbofan posting "Hey, now I get it, whooops".

[T.A.M.]

I am yet to meet a truther who can tell me exactly what structural properties the "undetermined quantity" of concrete had in supporting the towers. Maybe you will be the first.

I will help you and start your reply,

“It is completely irrelevant how much concrete was inside the towers because the concrete inside these buildings played absolutely no part in……… < please insert the correct answer >"

When you are ready.

It is an interesting Phenomenon I have witnessed with Woo believers in general. They seem to expect investigations to explain irrelevant occurrences or coincidence, and if they cannot, or did not, then it must be because it reveals the "secret truth" about what really happened.

For instance, only to a "truther" who believes 9/11 was an "inside job" does the question of "what could have caused all that concrete to turn to dust (which it did not incidentally)", become relevant or important. Even though it has zero to do with the cause of the collapse, and has sparked zero interest among the investigators (of course to the woo, this is even more proof that a conspiracy MUST exist).

TAM:)

[CORed]

Ha....he just posted

So while I wait for your experts response... Why don't you go ahead and ask him to calculate the amount of energy required to:

- Crush the steel superstructure of the building.
- Pulverize the concrete to a fine powder
- Heat the pile and maintain that heat for months
- Push the cloud of debris for miles
- Shake the earth
- Maintain collapse speed and/or ACCELERATE the collapse.
- Eject huge steel beams hundreds of yards
- A ton of **** I am not thinking of

Then ask him to calculate the mass of the top block, SUBTRACT the mass that does not fall within the footprint multiply by g and come up with th availble energy in a gravity driven collapse.

Ask him to tell the difference in the energy sinks (the list) and the energy input

I just asked him how nano thermite explained any of his questions and he said

"Huge ****ing energy input that can account for all of the above. Gravity simply cannot."

Okay, this clown is claiming that "nanothermite" (whatever the heck that is) could provide more energy than thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the gravitational potential energy of the building? It must be made with antimatter.

[Sunstealer]

Ask him to do the maths showing how much energy this requires and then how much thermite would be needed to produce that much energy. He'll run and hide because as a truther he can't do maths or science.

[psikeyhackr]

I am yet to meet a truther who can tell me exactly what structural properties the "undetermined quantity" of concrete had in supporting the towers. Maybe you will be the first.

I will help you and start your reply,

“It is completely irrelevant how much concrete was inside the towers because the concrete inside these buildings played absolutely no part in……… < please insert the correct answer >"

When you are ready.

It should be possible to come up with a relatively accurate number for the kinetic energy of the plane at the time of impact against the south tower.

However that kinetic energy had two effects. It did structural damage in the impact zone and it caused the tower to deflect off its centerline and then oscillate for FOUR MINUTES. The NIST says that the tower moved 12 inches off center at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact point.

Now it should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary comprehension of physics that the distribution of mass within the structure would affect the amount of energy required to cause that deflection. Therefore the distribution of concrete would have to be included. The energy that produced the deflection would have to be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the plane to determine how much was available to do structural damage.

However the brilliant JREFers in their great wisdom KNOW that this is of no importance. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

[stateofgrace]

It should be possible to come up with a relatively accurate number for the kinetic energy of the plane at the time of impact against the south tower.

However that kinetic energy had two effects. It did structural damage in the impact zone and it caused the tower to deflect off its centerline and then oscillate for FOUR MINUTES. The NIST says that the tower moved 12 inches off center at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact point.

Now it should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary comprehension of physics that the distribution of mass within the structure would affect the amount of energy required to cause that deflection. Therefore the distribution of concrete would have to be included. The energy that produced the deflection would have to be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the plane to determine how much was available to do structural damage.

However the brilliant JREFers in their great wisdom KNOW that this is of no importance. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

Thanks for the physics lesson but please be assured I don't need one from you. The answer you gave was not actually to my question but nice try, champ.

It is you who wants to know how much concrete was inside these buildings not me or as far as I can anybody else. The point I made, which clearly went over your head was that the concrete on the floors played no part in the support of these buildings. I did not state or even imply that the concrete was not a factor to be taken into account when trying to assess the damage from each plane. Nor did I state or imply that the weight of this concrete was not a factor in the collapse of each tower.

When you finally figure out much concrete was inside each tower, along with everything else that was inside each tower, I am sure we will see stunning maths from you that once again blows away the "official "story. :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

It should be possible to come up with a relatively accurate number for the kinetic energy of the plane at the time of impact against the south tower.

However that kinetic energy had two effects. It did structural damage in the impact zone and it caused the tower to deflect off its centerline and then oscillate for FOUR MINUTES. The NIST says that the tower moved 12 inches off center at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact point.

Now it should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary comprehension of physics that the distribution of mass within the structure would affect the amount of energy required to cause that deflection. Therefore the distribution of concrete would have to be included. The energy that produced the deflection would have to be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the plane to determine how much was available to do structural damage.

However the brilliant JREFers in their great wisdom KNOW that this is of no importance. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik
And the youtube video, how anti-intellectual to use 50 foot thick scale floors and a plane that bounces off. Just joking, you may be able to draw some conclusions from your model. Is that your model?

Not fair to show a steel reinforce concrete structure 6 stories high surviving a nuke, when the WTC was not concrete steel reinforced. That is not a good analogy. Oops, are you saying a nuke caused 9/11? This gets to be real dumb if you. Please explain the high points of your video, or what you mean to say.

So?

You can figure out the concrete yourself. You have had 7 years to figure this out. Do you need help? Good luck, happy new year

[A W Smith]

You can figure out the concrete yourself. You have had 7 years to figure this out. Do you need help? Good luck, happy new year


actually according to this javascript count up code (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4321332#post4321332)

It's been 2673 days since the truth movement has failed to come up with evidence of an inside job conspiracy!

but javascript does not work in this forum software,

im still looking for hours mins sec clocks

[psikeyhackr]

Thanks for the physics lesson but please be assured I don't need one from you. The answer you gave was not actually to my question but nice try, champ.

It is you who wants to know how much concrete was inside these buildings not me or as far as I can anybody else. The point I made, which clearly went over your head was that the concrete on the floors played no part in the support of these buildings.

You said the concrete was irrelevant. I demonstrated why it was not. The core of the building swayed with the perimeter columns due to the wind and plane impact. The floor slabs were the structural members that transferred that lateral force. Gravity isn't the only thing that skyscrapers have to cope with.

CHAMP

psik

[rwguinn]

It should be possible to come up with a relatively accurate number for the kinetic energy of the plane at the time of impact against the south tower.

However that kinetic energy had two effects. It did structural damage in the impact zone and it caused the tower to deflect off its centerline and then oscillate for FOUR MINUTES. The NIST says that the tower moved 12 inches off center at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact point.

Now it should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary comprehension of physics that the distribution of mass within the structure would affect the amount of energy required to cause that deflection. Therefore the distribution of concrete would have to be included. The energy that produced the deflection would have to be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the plane to determine how much was available to do structural damage.

However the brilliant JREFers in their great wisdom KNOW that this is of no importance. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik
IIRC, the period of the tower's Wn (natural frequency) was 11 seconds in the undamaged state.
If the oscillation was 4 minutes long, that is 22 cycles, total.
not inconceivable at all...

[stateofgrace]

You said the concrete was irrelevant. I demonstrated why it was not. The core of the building swayed with the perimeter columns due to the wind and plane impact. The floor slabs were the structural members that transferred that lateral force. Gravity isn't the only thing that skyscrapers have to cope with.

CHAMP

psik

No I did not. I said

The point I made, which clearly went over your head was that the concrete on the floors played no part in the support of these buildings. I did not state or even imply that the concrete was not a factor to be taken into account when trying to assess the damage from each plane. Nor did I state or imply that the weight of this concrete was not a factor in the collapse of each tower.That will be the bit you cut out of my post when you quoted me, champ. I said it was irrelevant to the structural support of these buildings.Equally so, you have demonstrated nothing, other than that there was concrete inside the buildings and for reason that only you seem to be aware of it's exact weight needs to be determined.

If you are going to reply have the manners and courtesy to actually read what you are replying to.

If you believe the concrete that was on the floors are a relevant factor and its exact weight needed to be determined to show the relevance. On you go, nobody is stopping you. When you are done show everybody your maths. Show everybody how this floor covering concrete is a major issue when a plane slams into buildings and show everybody how the same weight of this concrete contributed to the collapse. I have pointed out this concrete played no part in the structural support of these buildings. You have pointed out that the actual weight is relevant in order to work out the the plane damage. Have you actually seen me disagree with this? Emm, no if you actually read what is written, I didn’t.

So, again if you think it is so important with regard to the damage, what is actually stopping you from working it out yourself?

Oh

The floor slabs were the structural members that transferred that lateral force.Are you talking about the steel trusses here? or are you saying that the concrete transferred the lateral forces?

[rwguinn]

No I did not. I said

That will be the bit you cut out of my post when you quoted me, champ. I said it was irrelevant to the structural support of these buildings.

If you are going to reply have the manners and courtesy to actually read what you are replying to.

If you believe the concrete that was on the floors are a relevant factor and its exact weight needed to be determined to show the relevance. On you go, nobody is stopping you. When you are done show everybody your maths. Show everybody how this floor covering concrete is a major issue when a plane slams into buildings and show everybody how the same weight of this concrete contributed to the collapse. I have pointed out this concrete played no part in the structural support of these buildings. You have pointed out that the actual weight is relevant in order to work out the the plane damage. Have you actually seen me disagree with this? Emm, no if you actually read what is written, I didn’t.

So, again if you think it is so important with regard to the damage, what is actually stopping you from working it out yourself?

Oh

Are you talking about the steel trusses here? or are you saying that the concrete transferred the lateral forces?
Everyone (except engineers) knows that concrete is the ideal material to use in bending and tensile applications...
Stupid injineerz...

[DGM]

Are you talking about the steel trusses here? or are you saying that the concrete transferred the lateral forces?

To be fair here the floor/truss SYSTEM would be a critical component. The slab itself of course is only one part of this SYSTEM.


As far as his obsession with the distribution of mass.

WHO GIVES A CRAP?

[Mr X]

In case it helps, I have a doctorate in physics and over 20 years experience as a professional physicist.

Dave


..... never have I laughed so much........! :D

[funk de fino]

..... never have I laughed so much........! :D


Whats your experience and education that makes this funny to you?

[Dave Rogers]

..... never have I laughed so much........! :D

If I've brought a little happiness into someone's life, then my time hasn't entirely been wasted. Had I not been answering a direct question, I wouldn't have mentioned my qualifications, because they make me no more competent to comment on 9/11 than Steven Jones, a disappointing standard to try to live down to.

Dave

[Mr X]

If I've brought a little happiness into someone's life, then my time hasn't entirely been wasted. Had I not been answering a direct question, I wouldn't have mentioned my qualifications, because they make me no more competent to comment on 9/11 than Steven Jones, a disappointing standard to try to live down to.

Dave

Hey Dave
... now I thought you debunkers were making each other happy all the time.. you know all that jumping on 'truthers' and patting each other on the back........ surely that must keep you lot happy?



Hey Funkdefino
... have to tie your repy in with Dave's. My post count gettin too high... anyway to answer you........ only my common sense :D