An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The answer to your question about the twenty feet move is due to weight distribution. There was more weight in one direction and it collapsed that section downward, causing a tilt and initiating a global collapse. You can keep imagining that a collapse shouldn't have happened, but the fact is that the horizontal supports were not meant to endure vertical strain.

Utter rubbish!

That tilt/rotation required some force besides gravity to produce it. But the NIST does not even specify the center of mass of the top portion of the tower.

I watched the video, and the tilt happened only on one side of the tower. the other side essentially held on as the falling side crushed into the tower, the spire facing literally horizontally before obscured by smoke. You're saying you can't see how a falling object can fall?

reply to post by pshea38

If one photograph from 9/11 is faked, why not all?

I am sorry that I laughed at you in my previous post. The only dumb questions are the ones never asked. There has been a lot of tension with some of these discussion and I have been picking up some bad habits while here. I do not like it when people side step the issues and resort to ridicule to try and win an argument (it never works). It was weak of me to be rude and humiliating towards you and is not what denying ignorance is about.

There where thousands of people who saw the events and witnessed them that day, including many television stations. There is a lot of factual, recorded information out there. Just because some photos maybe fake does not meant that all this previously recorded information is lost. 9/11 is a very difficult and challenging issues with lots of different and conflicting information around. I had trouble trying to understand it when reviewing it a few years ago. With time and research I am now a lot more comfortable with the likely events. Now I am just trying to share what I know to those who want to listen.

There where thousands of people who saw the events and witnessed them that day, including many television stations. There is a lot of factual, recorded information out there.

The witness statements advocating the official fairy tale appear to be suspect, the television stations have propagated the war agenda and 'recorded information' can be anything from factual to fictional. From an investigative standpoint, nothing has been proven in a conclusive manner.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I agree that there are a lot of contradictions amongst all the possible evidence, witness statements, video, photographs, flight recorders, official documentation, physical wreckage and other sources. Sources that are generally considered credible in a court of law are now in question. The official story does not meet the standard of 'on the balance of probabilities' in evidence with many unanswered questions remaining.

What can be considered as close to 100% proven as possible:
One aeroplane went into WTC 1 and the building fell shortly after.
One aeroplane went into WTC 2 and the building fell shortly after.
WTC fell for unknown reasons.
Something hit the pentagon.
One aeroplane broke apart.

I find it completely unacceptable to give up on the case because it is too hard. Considering what has transpired and who the likely suspects are, it is not just in the national interest but also the global interest to sort this crime out and restore a sense of integrity to the system of governance. There are a lot of forensic tools available to help sift through the resources and establish the chain of events. ae911.org has collected a lot of scientific evidence to refute the case put by NIST as to how the towers fell. This same type of scientific scrutiny and professional debate can also be applied to the other remaining evidence. It will take time and a lot of resources but it is possible and vital if reason is to overcome ideology.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

What can be considered as close to 100% proven as possible:
One aeroplane went into WTC 1 and the building fell shortly after.
One aeroplane went into WTC 2 and the building fell shortly after.

What can we consider to be 100% CERTAIN?

Skyscraper MUST hold themselves up 24/7 microsecond to microsecond.

Skyscrapers must withstand the wind on an irregular basis so the designers must select some design maximum and hope reality does not exceed it. The design max of the WTC was 150 mph. and the building was supposed to sway 3 feet at the top.

To make the buildings support themselves against gravity the designers MUST determine how much steel is required at every level. Considering the the Empire State Building has stood for 80 years and there were no electronic computers back then and transistors were not invented until 1947 I cannot comprehend why it should be a big deal to come up with that data on the World Trade Center.

The Truth Movement should be harassing physicists not irrelevancies like Dick Cheney. The people that let this situation get out of hand are more of a problem because physics is not going to change in the next 1000 years. 9/11 video will probably still be around then. What will the physicists think? Will they wonder why today's physicists were so stupid. Why should we listen to them talk about Black Holes? They are pretending they know about gravity in collapsed matter but can't figure out skyscrapers?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


DO YOU have any construction experience or are you an engineer or a physicist I HOPE FOR OUR SAKES YOU DONT!!!!!

WIND load is taken up by the face of the building it is blowing on ie a very large area !!!!!

The KINETIC ENEGRY of the planes hit a very small area!!!!

Its the KINETIC ENERGY of the planes that caused the damage, then the fires!!!!

Look up Kinetic Energy and see how it works!!!

Look at images available on google of LARGE HIGH RISE buildings that have been built since 9/11 look at how they are NOW CONSTRUCTED.

Have a look at what ACTUALLY held the floors to the walls if you dont know you may be surprised!!!!

WHY did coutries all over the world change building regulations and codes after 9/11!!!!!!!

Why has architechs for the truth only have just over 1000 members after all this time when tens of 1000's of engineers, physicists and other architects LAUGH at them.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

DO YOU have any construction experience or are you an engineer or a physicist I HOPE FOR OUR SAKES YOU DONT!!!!!

WIND load is taken up by the face of the building it is blowing on ie a very large area !!!!!

The KINETIC ENEGRY of the planes hit a very small area!!!!

Its the KINETIC ENERGY of the planes that caused the damage, then the fires!!!!


Why has architechs for the truth only have just over 1000 members after all this time when tens of 1000's of engineers, physicists and other architects LAUGH at them.

The outer walls of the WTC were two dimensional arrays, vertical columns and horizontal spandrels. If the wind came in perpendicular to the wall it could not offer much resistance. The outer edge of the floor assemblies were attached to the perimeter wall and the inner edge to the core. The floor assemblies transferred lateral forces to the core and it was the THREE DIMENSIONAL structure of the core that actually withstood the force of the wind and kept the building upright. The exterior took the impact bot only a 3D structure could hold. No doubt some rigidity occurred at the corners where two exterior wall met at right angles also.

Structural engineering is grade school Newtonian Physics it is not quantum physics or solid state physics or astrophysics. Before 9/11 physicists should not have paid attention to skyscrapers unless they worked in one.

If you can provide a link to where I said something incorrect about KINETIC ENERGY please do so. I do not know much about and do not particularly care what building codes were changed because of 9/11. I do believe there was a big deal about stairwells being too close together because the impact of the plane took out both stairwells and people above the impact zone could not get out.

But stairwells don't have anything structural to do with the building.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Considering the the Empire State Building has stood for 80 years and there were no electronic computers back then and transistors were not invented until 1947 I cannot comprehend why it should be a big deal to come up with that data on the World Trade Center.

So when are you going to give some samples of these steel/concrete ratio calculations that you keep claiming every engineer and designer must do to determine if their building can "hold itself up"?

reply to post by hooper


Might be time to repeat my post from another thread, started by same OP.

This OP apparently attempting to pose as the actual James Fetzer, a co-founder of "Scholars for Truth", which is a valid (if misguided) group of so called "9/11 truthers". I may have uncovered the real identity of this OP, and username "JimFetzer":

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Was there any certain findings in deposits that were found in the aftermath. Certain elements that can't be explained how they got there?

Originally posted by jazz10
Was there any certain findings in deposits that were found in the aftermath. Certain elements that can't be explained how they got there?

Only one person believes there were, but his paper is questionable at best due to it being published in a journal that was practically self-run, and peer-reviewed by people who were also into conspiracy theories. The analysis of the paper itself finds that the conclusions are accurate, but independent analysis of the same material has not yielded the same results. Therefore, the paper is not reliable. For something to be scientifically acceptable, it has to have a repeatable and predictable result. (Yes, I was talking about Alex Jones' paper)

So no, nothing was found that can be supported. Only conspiracy theorists believe that there is evidence of anything suspicious.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Considering the the Empire State Building has stood for 80 years and there were no electronic computers back then and transistors were not invented until 1947 I cannot comprehend why it should be a big deal to come up with that data on the World Trade Center.

So when are you going to give some samples of these steel/concrete ratio calculations that you keep claiming every engineer and designer must do to determine if their building can "hold itself up"?

So you lying is accomplishing something?

Provide a link to where I said, "these steel/concrete ratio calculations that you keep claiming every engineer and designer must do".

I said they had to determine the distribution of steel for skyscrapers to hold themselves up. I said the steel had to hold up the concrete. I said we should be told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

I did not say anything about steel to concrete ratio calculations.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Considering the the Empire State Building has stood for 80 years and there were no electronic computers back then and transistors were not invented until 1947 I cannot comprehend why it should be a big deal to come up with that data on the World Trade Center.

So when are you going to give some samples of these steel/concrete ratio calculations that you keep claiming every engineer and designer must do to determine if their building can "hold itself up"?

So you lying is accomplishing something?

Provide a link to where I said, "these steel/concrete ratio calculations that you keep claiming every engineer and designer must do".

I said they had to determine the distribution of steel for skyscrapers to hold themselves up. I said the steel had to hold up the concrete. I said we should be told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

I did not say anything about steel to concrete ratio calculations.

psik

Whatever. Then please supply evidence that all engineers and designers perform steel and concrete distribution calculations as a regular part of the design process, or simply admit you are making it up.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Considering the the Empire State Building has stood for 80 years and there were no electronic computers back then and transistors were not invented until 1947 I cannot comprehend why it should be a big deal to come up with that data on the World Trade Center.

So when are you going to give some samples of these steel/concrete ratio calculations that you keep claiming every engineer and designer must do to determine if their building can "hold itself up"?

So you lying is accomplishing something?

Provide a link to where I said, "these steel/concrete ratio calculations that you keep claiming every engineer and designer must do".

I said they had to determine the distribution of steel for skyscrapers to hold themselves up. I said the steel had to hold up the concrete. I said we should be told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

I did not say anything about steel to concrete ratio calculations.

psik

Whatever. Then please supply evidence that all engineers and designers perform steel and concrete distribution calculations as a regular part of the design process, or simply admit you are making it up.

So it needs to be EXPLAINED to you that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support all of the weight above it? So it needs to be EXPLAINED to you that the concrete is going to be part of the weight that has to be supported? The concrete in a standard floor slab in the WTC was 600 TONS. There were 84 of them.

Part of the reason this has dragged on for NINE YEARS is people deliberately being obtuse.

Read Wikipedia about the Empire State Building. They say it was designed from the top down.

Can you figure out why that was?

WHATEVER!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So it needs to be EXPLAINED to you that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support all of the weight above it?

No, no. You need not "explain" that. I know its not true. I understand how things actually work, how things are supported.

So it needs to be EXPLAINED to you that the concrete is going to be part of the weight that has to be supported? The concrete in a standard floor slab in the WTC was 600 TONS. There were 84 of them.

Wow, thats funny. I thought you had no clue as the weight of materials of each floor.

Part of the reason this has dragged on for NINE YEARS is people deliberately being obtuse.

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but nothing has "dragged on". Its over. You are pretty much by yourself on this one.

Read Wikipedia about the Empire State Building. They say it was designed from the top down.

Because there was a big race to see who would construct the worlds tallest building. Had nothing to do with "steel distribution".

I take it then that you have absolutely no facts to support your oft repeated contention that engineers and designers sit and do extensive "steel distribution" calculations when designing builings.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by bsbray11
Agreed.

Or even more simply, illustrate the fact that the "planes and fires alone" theories were never proven to begin with, so no one can logically take the position that the burden of proof is on anyone else in the first place. The government never proved anything to begin with. That's the most important and relevant fact of this whole "movement" business imo.

That is the point right there.

The airliners were less than 200 tons. The buildings were more than TWO THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the planes! We are supposed to BELIEVE the buildings could be TOTALLY OBLITERATED in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

Has this country been in The Twilight Zone for NINE YEARS?

And then someone asks why I am obsessed about the distributions of steel and concrete. Can people comprehend what it takes for skyscrapers to hold themselves up in 100 mph winds and survive storms that last for hours if not days?

This is the best movie I have seen about 9/11 though the first couple of minutes are kind of dumb. Who gives a damn about a Republican not sleeping. LOL

video.google.com...#

Conspiracies are irrelevant.

psik

What get's me is how the buildings basically exploded from the top down, leaving, half way through the destruction, little more than mere atmosphere above the remaining structure, and yet, down the debris wave went, without any appreciable loss of momentum, all the way to the ground - the entire process, from top to bottom occuring in little more than about 3 SECONDS (one, two, three) longer than absolute FREE FALL for ANY freely dropped object from the height of the twin towers (whether a large steel safe or a grand piano), which with air resistence factored in, is a little over 10 seconds maybe 10.5 seconds - with the actual total destruction time? - about 13 seconds.

If that weren't enough - all we need do it to WATCH the building being destroyed..



As horrific a thing it is to consider, it is absolutely and unequivocally, self evident, that the buildings could only have been destoyed, as observed, via the use of explosives.

Everything else is just obfuscation and diversion and attempt to discredit and divide, and given what's involved and at stake here, that work is a form of evil or of covering up for evil, aiding and abetting, and there are many among us, who do this work KNOWINGLY, having done the research. I think some of them might want to just stop and think a bit and then do a little soul searching before getting stung by this, and duped into working in one way or another for forces of darkness and oppression, mass murder and all manner of overt and covert manipulation which employs the Big Lie as a point of leverage.

For those who have not done the research and who've not looked at it closely, only knowing that the planes hit and then later the buildings "collapsed" they can be excused for accepting the ruse.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jazz10
Was there any certain findings in deposits that were found in the aftermath. Certain elements that can't be explained how they got there?

Only one person believes there were, but his paper is questionable at best due to it being published in a journal that was practically self-run, and peer-reviewed by people who were also into conspiracy theories. The analysis of the paper itself finds that the conclusions are accurate, but independent analysis of the same material has not yielded the same results. Therefore, the paper is not reliable. For something to be scientifically acceptable, it has to have a repeatable and predictable result. (Yes, I was talking about Alex Jones' paper)

So no, nothing was found that can be supported. Only conspiracy theorists believe that there is evidence of anything suspicious.

First of all his name isn't Alex Jones and secondly, everything you just stated is a lie, none of it true. You are an apologist for the most heinous crime in modern history, what a disgraceful role to be playing.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

For those who have not done the research and who've not looked at it closely, only knowing that the planes hit and then later the buildings "collapsed" they can be excused for accepting the ruse.

Just curious - what constitutes "research" in your worldview? I hear that a lot, but besides skimming the internet, composing Google searches, and watching homemade Youtube videos, exactly what "research" are "they" supposed to do in order to see through the "ruse"?

Maybe gain a degree in structural engineering? Compose a competing failure model? Have you done any of this?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

First of all his name isn't Alex Jones and secondly, everything you just stated is a lie, none of it true. You are an apologist for the most heinous crime in modern history, what a disgraceful role to be playing.

Let's analyze this response:
"his name isn't Alex Jones"
Alright then, I apologize. I do go off memory for most of my responses. Secondly, what I stated was not a lie, as a lie would imply that I am trying to deceive. I'm just trying to inform based on what I have learned. I KNOW no one has replicated the thermite results as a fact. Someone re-did the math that was in the paper, and it came out right, but that's already using what is questionable data! Until someone else gets repeatable results from the dust of the WTCs, there's just no way you can say with any certainty that the paper is entirely accurate. Scientifically, it is disputable. I learned this in a magical learning institution known as college.

"You are an apologist for the most heinous crime in modern history, what a disgraceful role to be playing."
This... well, this is a disgrace to the forum, and I am appalled that you would even post such an attacking, assumptive statement. I am not an apologist, because that would mean I am defending the US for the sake of defending the US. I am not. I am pointing out the flaws in the arguments that are trying to say that the official story is bunk. I can see the flaws, and until someone adequately explains them in a way that isn't contradictory to the facts (observable, repeatable demonstrations of logic and science) I will not blindly say that I believe the government bombed their own citizens for some cash. I guess the oil prices and the nation's debt sure prove that we went to war for the right reason, right? I don't support the war! It's been a stupid idea from the beginning for the reasons we did it.

I'm not playing this role that you've assigned me in the play you think I'm in. I'm just a citizen who has an opinion that he is trying to become informed on. I become more informed by voicing my current opinion and getting corrected or more advanced in my viewpoints. The fact that I am being textually attacked for my viewpoints shows just how unscientific and belief-based at least you are. I would like to do my best to not attack the person, only the information that lies therein in order to come to the closest inkling of the truth that I can.

Be a decent, sensible person and respond like you are my fellow human being and not some anonymous internet username.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So it needs to be EXPLAINED to you that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support all of the weight above it?

No, no. You need not "explain" that. I know its not true. I understand how things actually work, how things are supported.

Well, until you EXPLAIN THAT I cannot respond.

Do we have to go through the difference between FLOORS and LEVELS again?

psik