1200 Architects And Engineers

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I drove into Chicago when he did his dog and pony show at Chicago Circle campus in May of 2008. I got in line afterwards[sic] and asked about that.[sic]

So, you did all the above to see a man you think is nuts?

you wanna see a "Dog and Pony" show?

Ever taken a flight on an airline?

Click here and look at right margin.

www.secure-skies.org...

Here's a hint -

# Airline Flts per day: 28,000

Airborne Right Now: 4988

Flights Protected by 2
Armed Pilots:

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The question is not really how one could design a building like the WTC. There is surely a range of possible designs. And anyone guessing at the design would be asked "how do you know you're right" and he would not know, because he was just proposing one out of the set of possibilities.

The right question is what was the actual design. If NIST doesn't release the accurate data although they have it, they are obstructing the process.

Designing a building is not grade school physics or high school physics. The finished design must meet the requirements that one could think of if one was quite good at high school physics, and many other requirements as well. There is a difference between writing a symphony and appreciating a symphony. More people can do the latter than the former.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why doesn't Richard Gage and his cronies talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? ...

He gave this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints.

What would the alternative be?

You're complaining about how we still don't have accurate figures for this, right? Or have I got you wrong?

I agree that NIST could have easily manipulated the information they released to make it misleading, down-playing safety factors, ignoring the beams that were used across the open office space on some floors, and like you mention you don't even know how much concrete was used. There are lots of pre-9/11 and even post-9/11 sources even reporting that the gypsum walls between the offices and the core were actually concrete walls. After all they didn't publish the full documentation, and it's not like anyone would be able to double-check them and make sure it was all right. If they ever received accurate structural documentation from other authorities in the first place (also dubious), they remain the sole possessors of it.

Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The question is not really how one could design a building like the WTC. There is surely a range of possible designs. And anyone guessing at the design would be asked "how do you know you're right" and he would not know, because he was just proposing one out of the set of possibilities.

The right question is what was the actual design. If NIST doesn't release the accurate data although they have it, they are obstructing the process.

Designing a building is not grade school physics or high school physics. The finished design must meet the requirements that one could think of if one was quite good at high school physics, and many other requirements as well. There is a difference between writing a symphony and appreciating a symphony. More people can do the latter than the former.

(if you click any image, this one is highly recommended)







Source

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So why doesn't Richard Gage and his cronies talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?

Perhaps you could tell us how it is relevant or how it contradicts anything he does talk about?

He gave this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. What kind of computers did they have in the early 60s when the WTC was designed? How much computing power should AE911Truth have at its disposal now?

How much computing power is required to turn inaccurate blueprints into accurate versions and what does it have to do with computers in the 60s?

They don't even talk about the weight of a floor assembly.

Again, perhaps you could tell us how it is relevant or how it contradicts anything he does talk about?

This is grade school physics.

Yes, it is simple physics. I am still waiting for an OS believer to show me how the top section can accelerate through the bottom section without the bottom section providing a smaller upwards reactional force than when the top section was stationary.

These ENGINEERS are making this appear too complicated.

I'm keeping it extremely simple. The AE911truth presentation keeps it pretty simple too, I'm not sure why it is coming off as complicated to you.

But then those degrees would not seem worth $100,000 if that grade school Newtonian physics was demonstrated to be easy.

I can assure you the degrees go a bit deeper than Newtonian physics and are worth every penny.

Curious how the Empire State Building was completed 17 years before the invention of the transistor but electrical engineers aren't supposed to comprehend the physics of skyscrapers. What a joke!

Electrical engineers are supposed to comprehend the physics, that is why they are allowed to sign up for AE911truth. I'm curious as to how this low-tech Empire State Building was able to survive an impact from a B25 Bomber lost in fog, yet the towers, which were each designed to withstand an impact from a 707 with a full fuel load (plus a factor of safety) came down like a house of cards.







[edit on 26-8-2010 by Azp420]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Thank you Tiffany for the excellent links.

Originally posted by Azp420 how the top section can accelerate through the bottom section without the bottom section providing a smaller upwards reactional force than when the top section was stationary.

As that never happened, how can anyone show you?

yet the towers, which were designed to withstand multiple impacts from 707s with full fuel loads (plus a factor of safety) came down like a house of cards.

And yet we have another truther lie, the towers were not designed for multiple hits

reply to post by dereks

As that never happened, how can anyone show you?

So you dispute the video in the OP showing the top section accelerating into the bottom section?

Are you claiming it decelerated or had zero acceleration?

And yet we have another truther lie, the towers were not designed for multiple hits

My mistake, I'll edit my post to correct it. Thanks.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I drove into Chicago when he did his dog and pony show at Chicago Circle campus in May of 2008. I got in line afterwards[sic] and asked about that.[sic]

So, you did all the above to see a man you think is nuts?

I never said anything about thinking he was nuts.

I concluded an airliner could not destroy a building that large two weeks after 9/11.

But the way the steel and concrete HAD TO BE distributed was important to that conclusion.

When do the EXPERTS ever talk about how much the south tower deflected due to the impact?

www.youtube.com...

psik
.

Originally posted by Azp420
So you dispute the video in the OP showing the top section accelerating into the bottom section?

No, I am disputing your claim, "without the bottom section providing a smaller upwards reactional force than when the top section was stationary"

you "forget" Newtons second law!

[edit on 26/8/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I can assure you the degrees go a bit deeper than Newtonian physics and are worth every penny.

I'm sure they do. But designing a building and figuring why a 200 ton airliner could not possibly destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than two hours is a whole nuther story.

I sent an email to Gage in 2007 about Frank Greening's potential energy calculations and he responded to that. But I haven't seen any mention of the distributions of steel and concrete by the organization since then.

I think most high school kids that passed physics should have figured out why a plane could not do that by now. So I think getting this settled has to be a serious embarrasment to lots of people with degrees in engineering and physics. Why should we listen to physicists talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs if they can't build a self supporting model where the top 15% can crush the rest.

This should have been settled in SIX MONTHS!

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The question is not really how one could design a building like the WTC. There is surely a range of possible designs. And anyone guessing at the design would be asked "how do you know you're right" and he would not know, because he was just proposing one out of the set of possibilities.

The right question is what was the actual design. If NIST doesn't release the accurate data although they have it, they are obstructing the process.

A skyscraper must support its weight thru its entire height. That means the designers had to figure out how much weight each level had to support and how much steel that took. So lower levels had to hold that additional weight.

Then there is the wind load the building had to handle. It had to handle vertical and shear forces. So any supposed collapse had to overcome structures designed to handle the weight. So ho could it possibly come down that fast?

I think the supposed design to handle an airliner impact is totally irrelevant to a total collapse. Worst case was the top falling down the side.

It's RIDICULOUS!!! YEAH, Grade School kids should see that.

psik
.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

reply to post by dereks


I can assure you I have not forgotten about Newtons second law.

For there to be an acceleration of the top section, there MUST be an imbalance of forces (some net force acting on the top section). The downwards force due to gravity acting on the top section remains constant at all times (let's call it 1.0W, where W=the weight of the top section). The only other significant force acting on the top section in the vertical direction is the upwards reactional force provided by the lower structure (which is initially holding the top section up with an equal and opposite force of 1.0W).

As the heavily damaged initiation zone gives way, the initiation zone is now producing less than 1.0W of upwards reactional force on the top section, resulting in a net downwards force acting on the top section. If the top section is accelerating at about 65% free fall, the net force acting on the top section is 0.65W (1.0W downwards gravitational force minus 0.35W upwards initiation zone reactional force). Remember, for there to be an acceleration there has to be an imbalance of forces, the gravitational force is constant, and the only other significant vertical direction force is the upwards structural reactional force. 0.35W upwards is less than the 1.0W upwards once provided by the initiation zone but we can explain this by assuming that after jet impacts and fires, once the columns etc started to buckle the largest upwards reactional force that the initiation zone was able to produce on the top section was now only 0.35W instead of 1.0W. Fair enough so far (I've not really looked into the validity of the OS version of initiation but the events so far are plausible enough from this force-acceleration point of view).

After the falling top section meets the undamaged bottom section (bellow jet impact initiation zone) is where things get interesting. It is understandable and logical that the heavily damaged initiation zone buckles and only produces an upwards reactional force which is less than 1.0W but not in the undamaged lower structure. Once the top section impacts the lower section one would expect deceleration to occur (as in the gravitational demolition examples) because the lower structure should have been able to produce an upwards reactional force acting on the top section of 1.0W or greater. If it was 1.0W upwards, then the net force on the upper section would have been zero, and neither acceleration nor deceleration would have occurred. If it was greater than 1.0W (which it should have been easily capable of) then the direction of the net force is now upwards and deceleration would occur, as expected. This was not the case however. It was measured that the falling top section continued to accelerate. For the top section to continue to accelerate there MUST be an imbalance of forces acting on it resulting in a net force in the downwards direction.

Care to point out where you think I have gone wrong or what I have missed?

Originally posted by Azp420
Care to point out where you think I have gone wrong or what I have missed?

You missed ther kinetic energy in the top section, that is the velocity squared, so once the building started collapsing the lower section could not stop that energy, thus the collapse continued

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I'm sure they do. But designing a building and figuring why a 200 ton airliner could not possibly destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than two hours is a whole nuther story.

A great deal of time and effort went into designing the towers to withstand an airliner impact.

But I haven't seen any mention of the distributions of steel and concrete by the organization since then.

I'm still unaware as to what the distributions of steel and concrete would prove.

So I think getting this settled has to be a serious embarrasment to lots of people with degrees in engineering and physics.

It's not an embarrassment to at least 1200 of us.

reply to post by dereks


Kinetic energy is not a force. I'm talking about forces acting on the top section using the F=ma equation. The conservation of energy method is a more complicated method (in this case it uses more approximations and estimates) of achieving the same thing.

What forces have I missed?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by donotinducevomiting]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Azp420
Kinetic energy is not a force.

At least he didn't tell you to throw a bowling ball to the top of the WTC at 9.81 mph.

It's amazing how much "debunkers" can reveal about their collective grasp of physics in a single evening.

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by dereks

 

Kinetic energy is not a force. I'm talking about forces acting on the top section using the F=ma equation. The conservation of energy method is a more complicated method (in this case it uses more approximations and estimates) of achieving the same thing.

What forces have I missed?

Big Hint: use the ignore button for people like this. Dont waste your time & energy replying to crap like that.
If they still believe a Boeing hit the pentagon, ignoring the video and physical evidence - and lack thereof, and have no plausible explanantion for the towers (all 3 - including WTC7) falling at the speed that they did (without controlled demolition assistance) they must be paid disinfo agents.
They use all manner of techniques diverting you from the simple clear and obvious points you make to argue towards point.
You are one click away from a better nights sleep.