Can the NIST report withstand a peer review?

reply to post by Cassius666


Then show me the physics that proof the "energy is consumed at some point". Of course this is a true statement, but in case of the WTC this "point" was when all mass reached ground level.

As for the central columns, actual videos also show parts of the central columns still standing. So what happened to them? They collapsed when their horizontal supports were gone.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the conclusion is that the resistance offered by the floors is not large enough to transfer enough kinetic energy into other types of energy in order to make the mass slow down. And there is no reason for the floors to be designed to offer this kind of resistance. The floors were not design for dropping top sections on them.

Anyway, I think it was you who for some reason didn't want to accept the concept of a floor, the part you walk on, and you insisted you should look at the support columns to determine the resistance. Hence your flawed model. I think with a couple of wooden blocks and a deck of playing cards you can make a more accurate model, where the playing cards function as floors and the wooden blocks as columns.

I make a point of distinguishing between FLOOR and LEVEL. By FLOOR I mean the horizontal portion the 4" thick concrete slab on the corrugated pans and the 35 and 60 foot trusses. There were 5" slabs in the core. By LEVEL I mean a 12' high section including the height of columns in the core and on the perimeter. It is the columns that got held the weight above not the FLOORS. Those columns had to be bent and dislocated for everything above to come down and that would have had to happen all of the way down the building. So if the amount of steel on LEVEL 15 is different from that on LEVEL 105 it is going to be in the columns not the FLOORS.

The curious thing is that we never hear the weight of a complete floor assembly. The 600 ton weight of the concrete slab is easy to compute from the dimensions and density but what was the weight of the pans and trusses? How is it we never hear that in NINE YEARS?

So why don't we have accurate data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL from an official source after NINE YEARS.

Why can't one of our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for four years of what they claim is education build a physical model that can collapse due to the top 15% falling on the rest. How is it that Purdue can make a computer simulation of the north tower impact where the core columns don't move but nobody is screaming about that OBVIOUS FLAW when it contradicts the empirical data that the NIST published on the south tower impact.

psik

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Cassius666How else do you explain the total annihilation that we whitness

The potential energy equivalent to 100 ton of TNT being released?

How can Potential Energy computed from the ground cause material to turn to dust hundreds of feet above the ground? Good trick that. Where are the physicists pointing out that peculiar phenomenon?

psik

reply to post by -PLB-


Energy is consumed, its a pysical fact. As for the math, head over to AE911Truth.org, I am sure they can do a better job than me. Also you did not provide a video where what you say happens, happens.

reply to post by Cassius666


Actually the first law of thermodynamics informs us that energy can neither be created or destroyed; it is simply transformed from one state to another.

reply to post by hooper


Yes thats the first law. If you found a way to convert energy from one state in the other with a 100% efficiency rate, then more power to you. If you burn gas, technically it is transformed in motion and mostly in heat, but we still referred to it as "consumed". In the top part wasnt the right ammount of energy stored to smash to the 2nd floor and stop there.

Also from the videos we have seen over and over, we can clearly see, that floors pancaking one atop the other is not what happened, so we are beating a dead horse here.

I am starting to think you are not a truther at all hooper.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It seems to me that the NIST report clearly states where they base the weight they use in their models on.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Because potential energy is transfered to kinetic energy from the moment mass starts to fall. Realize that the potential energy is magnitudes greater than the energy released from explosives in a controlled demolition. So the notion that explosive cause all that destruction is very far fetched.

reply to post by -PLB-


If it is true what you say, the released energy transforms the floors into fine dust, what takes out the subsequent floors if much of the energy has been tranformed into a disentigrated floor? Also we still have the problem that we need a trigger. Also we still have the problem that we do not have one video that shows one floor pancaking atop the other. Also it is not true that one floor crashing atop the other releases more energy than any ammount of explosives. If you want to argue it releases more energy than say, a firecracker, yes we can agree on that.

I am starting to think you are not a truther at all.

reply to post by Cassius666


I always get these lazy answers when I ask for the physics. "Go look for it somewhere on the web". There must be a study on which you base your position. Which study is that? I can easily point you to a study (direct link to a PDF) that concludes there was enough energy for a progressive collapse. Why can't anyone ever do that for a study that shows a progressive collapse is impossible? The smoking gun, one would expect that it would be spammed like crazy. But no, you always have to find it "somewhere" yourself and nobody knows exactly where.

reply to post by Cassius666


Just a portion of the energy is transfered, not all of it.

Trigger = plane+fires.

Dust obfuscates the collapse. The floors REALLY fell on top of each other, whether is was controlled demolition or not. They just can not fall anywhere else. Your idea that they just totally exploded in millions of small pieces is really out there, together with space beams, holograms and nukes.

And yes, the potential energy is much greater than the energy released by explosive in a CD. Not sure about the floors crashing, as that would only be a portion of the released potential energy.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I always get these lazy answers when I ask for the physics. "Go look for it somewhere on the web". There must be a study on which you base your position. Which study is that? I can easily point you to a study (direct link to a PDF) that concludes there was enough energy for a progressive collapse. Why can't anyone ever do that for a study that shows a progressive collapse is impossible? The smoking gun, one would expect that it would be spammed like crazy. But no, you always have to find it "somewhere" yourself and nobody knows exactly where.

No I specifically directed you to go to AE911truth.org, where you find a wealth of experts who are better qualified to answer all your questions. Its what I did, well I did not go to ae911truth.org but I did get the opinion of different sources educated in related fields.

Why would you even want my input? I am not an engineer. I am starting to think you are not interested in the truth at all. I think you just want to see people fail debunking in what you believe in. I dont think you are a truther at all. Also like I said, in the whole building was enough energy stored for it to collapse, but to release it you would have to take out the last floor. According to the pancake theory the energy would get used first to desintegrate the floor, then it would be used again to take out the floor. Thats impossible.

Anyway you want a detailed answer, go to 911truth.org. Do you take some kind of pleasure in pressurring people who are ill educated on engineering subjects to produce faulty math, so you can further bully them because they prodcued faulthy math? I can just give you the dumbed down version that the engineers well dumbed down for me. But unlike most 911 deniers I am not delusional enough to be able to read AND understand the NIST report without the necessary education.

Also why would you need an PDF to prove your point? How about you show me a video of the floors pancaking atop each other? There is only every angle imaginable of either collapse on the interwebs.

reply to post by Cassius666


I am not asking for your opinion, I am asking you for a scientific study done by experts in that field. I also don't really care about the opinion of the AE911truth people, or the opinion of anyone for that matter. I care about objective scientific studies, that can be repeated by anyone no matter what opinion someone has.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I am not asking for your opinion, I am asking you for a scientific study done by experts in that field. I also don't really care about the opinion of the AE911truth people, or the opinion of anyone for that matter. I care about objective scientific studies, that can be repeated by anyone no matter what opinion someone has.

So why wouldnt you get an objective sicentific study from the professionals who made themselves avaiable at ae911truth.org? There is only about one thousand of them. You seem to think that is an biased source with an agenda, that can not be trusted, but I dont quite see why. Are they plotting to get rich on tshirt sales and coffee mugs? They all get a cut of your 15 dollars?

Get the opinion of an engineer who did not sign up with the AE911truth.org website then. I think on this very board are active posters educated in related fields, or at least pursuing an education in a related field.

reply to post by Cassius666


I would gladly get it. Please point me to it. Give me a link.

reply to post by -PLB-


Like I said I didnt get my information from the interwebs. Now you are begging me for a link. I dont see what is keeping you from getting the related information yourself or contacting anybody on that site or a related source to point you in the right direction. In my opinion you would fare far better though by going to your local university and look for somebody with the background willing to answer your questions. Then you can relay to us what they told you and argue your point based on that, or at least with the people who have the background to understand the information they provided you. I fail to see why I am supposed to do all the work for you.

Are you looking to argue that you are right and I am wrong because I did not look into that site despite the fact that you cant produce a video of the tower collapse that shows the floors pancaking one atop the other?

EDIT: Hey what happened to that direct link to the study?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Just a portion of the energy is transfered, not all of it.

Trigger = plane+fires.

Dust obfuscates the collapse. The floors REALLY fell on top of each other, whether is was controlled demolition or not. They just can not fall anywhere else. Your idea that they just totally exploded in millions of small pieces is really out there, together with space beams, holograms and nukes.

And yes, the potential energy is much greater than the energy released by explosive in a CD. Not sure about the floors crashing, as that would only be a portion of the released potential energy.

edit on 20-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Uh, the dust were the floors. The chunks that made it to the ground were the steel beams, the conrete was turned into dust, so what smashed on the subsequent buildings? And what force coordinated the buildings for them to fall straight down? That hasnt been explained either. Each time one floor smashes atop the other all supporting structures would have to cave at the same time. And finally where are those floors, after the collapse you have ground zero, not the floors stacked one atop the other, they cant all be in the basement. If the floors pancaked one atop the other, where did they go?

Your words and what we see is clearly inconsistent, low videoquality or not.

reply to post by Cassius666


I am arguing that "truthers" often claim the physics proof this and that, and when asked to show a study that actually does all the maths, they have nothing to show for and you are told you should look for it yourself. Please understand you are making an extremely weak case.

As for the study that supports a progressive collapse, take a look at for example: www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I am arguing that "truthers" often claim the physics proof this and that, and when asked to show a study that actually does all the maths, they have nothing to show for and you are told you should look for it yourself. Please understand you are making an extremely weak case.

As for the study that supports a progressive collapse, take a look at for example: www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Yeah, that is still not what we see in any of the videos no matter the angle. Also if the floors pancaked one atop the other, where did they go? Also the paper argues with the total mass of the WTC, but if the last floor crashes atop the floor under it, you cant argue with the total mass of the wtc. If the floors fell straight down there should have been more rubble at ground zero, yet the floors were spread all over the city as fine dust. Also it is an idealized model en.wikipedia.org... Also the paper correctly concludes that if the ammount of energy released by the floor exceeds the capacity of the subsequent floor, the floor will cave. HOWEVER in that paper there are no values used, to determine the ammount of energy involved or released. So we have an idealized paper, composed with US National funds give to an university which produced a theory, but does not flesh it out with actual data.

reply to post by Cassius666


Are you claiming that all concrete instantly turned into dust and became airborne? Do you have evidence for this claim? Can you also make an estimate of how much explosive you would need in order to do that? And why on earth would anyone want to do that? Why blow up all the concrete in the floors? The force that cause a mass to fall straight down is called gravity. Finally, the floors fell down to the ground (where else?) making a huge pile of debris. Of course the floors didn't stat intact, they either just fell down hundreds of meters, or got crushed by an enormous pile of rubble.

reply to post by -PLB-


If it didnt turn into dust, what was the dust layer where did the floors go, where is the video showing the floors pancaking and what stabilized the floors so they would continue straight down?