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

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


That is why I make a point of distinguishing FLOORS and LEVELS. By LEVEL I include the columns in the CORE. The core of the north tower came down on the stationary core below. It was not about FLOORS it was about HORIZONTAL BEAMS that we are not given data about.

The south tower is another issue. How did the top 29 stories break loose and tilt 22 degrees. Where did the energy for that come from. The NIST does not even talk about the center of mass of the tilted portion or the center of rotation.

psik

You mention Horizontal beams what ones

Underlined POINTS above

First North Tower Hit lets SEE



Almost dead centre on the elevation WHAT would be hit by the debris after it went through?

Now the South Tower Hit lets SEE



More to one side of the elevation damage done to the corner of the building



Lots of damage to the elevation of impact so because the weakend steel could no longer support the mass directly above it dropped YOU can SEE that on the videos.

Look at how much of the upper floors of the building are still intact LOOK at roof area what do you SEE a few seconds after the collapse started just before its covered in dust

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The alleged plane crashed had nothing to do with the alleged collapses. Most of the jet fuel burned up in those spectacular fireballs. Kerosene burns lower than propane, which does not melt camping stoves when they are used for cooking. The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause any weakening, much less melting. I have not idea what we are seeing in those final slides, but it looks nothing like what happened to the Twin Towers.

reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Of course Jim and the only thing that would have burned would be the fuel!! I take it you just ignored the data of the fire tests shown by one of your supporters a few posts back!! Plenty of info on the net re expected temperatures for office and house fires go look it up. Then look at the effect of temperature on steel strength plenty of data on that!

DO you have ANY undestanding of science at all!!!

Oh buy the way nice to see you admit it was planes now underlined above!!!

The flames dont look that bad eh Jim!!!!!!!

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Dude, why the heck are you asking questions if you don't want to work toward an answer! It's like you are 'trying' to fight rather than work together. I offer a collaborative effort to answer the questions that you deem so fricken important, and then you turn around and go "blah blah blah, we should have known earlier, I have all the answer I need already."

Nice demonstration of maturity...

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Dude, why the heck are you asking questions if you don't want to work toward an answer! It's like you are 'trying' to fight rather than work together. I offer a collaborative effort to answer the questions that you deem so fricken important, and then you turn around and go "blah blah blah, we should have known earlier, I have all the answer I need already."

Nice demonstration of maturity...

This rubbish about maturity is just an attempt to shift the subject from physics to psychological crap. The mature think what they are told no matter how stupid it is.

It should have been obvious to grade school kids within a week of 9/11 that airliners weighing less than 200 tons could not cause that much destruction in LESS THAN TWO HOURS. This has been a Propaganda War for years now. The people who Believe or CLAIM to Believe in the Official Conspiracy Theory have to explain why they are so stupid they can't figure out why the distributions of steel and concrete are important in skyscraper design. The NIST admitted it was important in their silly report about the effect of shock on suspended ceilings.

This ain't science this is the 9/11 Religion.

Watch the so called SCIENTIFIC Simulation made by Purdue. They put HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core. But then the core columns don't move due to the airliner impact. HILARIOUS!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It should have been obvious to grade school kids within a week of 9/11 that airliners weighing less than 200 tons could not cause that much destruction in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

And yet you, and only you, see this as a problem. Maybe those grade school kids have a better understanding of physics in the real world than you do. The rest of the world is nuts, in on it, stupid OR you're wrong. I am going to go with you're wrong.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It should have been obvious to grade school kids within a week of 9/11 that airliners weighing less than 200 tons could not cause that much destruction in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

And yet you, and only you, see this as a problem. Maybe those grade school kids have a better understanding of physics in the real world than you do. The rest of the world is nuts, in on it, stupid OR you're wrong. I am going to go with you're wrong.

I supplied the Cardington information didn't I? Did it collapse in less than two hours?

Is it my fault the the core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation. Is it my fault the NIST provided empirical data on the south tower moving on impact. But you are correct in that I have not seen anyone else point this out. But since I have pointed it out no one has disputed it.

I think there is a kind of GROUP THINK DUMBNESS in humanity. Maybe it is what psychologists call The Bandwagon Effect. Most people have to do and think what the people around them do and think. But the Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about psychology. Tell us what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can be collapsed by its top 15% or less.

Could it be the Laws of Physics?

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I think there is a kind of GROUP THINK DUMBNESS in humanity. Maybe it is what psychologists call The Bandwagon Effect. Most people have to do and think what the people around them do and think. But the Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about psychology. Tell us what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can be collapsed by its top 15% or less.

Ok, the votes are in, you have elected to go with "I am smarter than everyone else in the world".

As for the model - see "World Trade Center, September 11, 2001".

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I supplied the Cardington information didn't I? Did it collapse in less than two hours?

psik

Did the Cardington test fire cover a complete floor? NO
Did they damage the steelwork with a high energy impact say like a plane crash before lighting the fires? NO
Did they use a large dynamic load dropped onto the test steelwork to simulate the upper floors collapsing? NO

So was it a realistic comparison to the WTC NO!!!!!!!!

If I fired a bullet at a bullet proof vest to show it worked and I then gave you a vest which wasn't bullet proof would YOU let me fire a bullet at you after all both are vests one was tested SO the result should be the same according to you methodology of comparing things!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I supplied the Cardington information didn't I? Did it collapse in less than two hours?

psik

Did the Cardington test fire cover a complete floor? NO
Did they damage the steelwork with a high energy impact say like a plane crash before lighting the fires? NO
Did they use a large dynamic load dropped onto the test steelwork to simulate the upper floors collapsing? NO

So was it a realistic comparison to the WTC NO!!!!!!!!

If I fired a bullet at a bullet proof vest to show it worked and I then gave you a vest which wasn't bullet proof would YOU let me fire a bullet at you after all both are vests one was tested SO the result should be the same according to you methodology of comparing things!!!!

A better example could even be a computer. One computer gets dropped before someone goes to use it. It overheats and burns out. Then, to prove that it's impossible, someone starts up a brand new computer and says "see, nothing happened. You must have sabotaged it."

reply to post by Varemia


No I still think mine was better if you really THINK about it!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Did the Cardington test fire cover a complete floor? NO

Did any of the WTC fires cover a complete floor? NO

The NIST report even tells you as much if you ever read it.

Did they damage the steelwork with a high energy impact say like a plane crash before lighting the fires? NO

Does such an impact change the physics of what the steel will do when heated, which is the point of these studies in the first place? NO

Did they use a large dynamic load dropped onto the test steelwork to simulate the upper floors collapsing? NO

Is that even relevant here? NO

Before any of that even theoretically happened at the WTC, there was, according to NIST, a pulling force caused by sagging trusses on the perimeter columns that caused significant deflection. That has to happen first of all. So how likely that scenario is in the first place, is determined from studies like the Cardington tests.

So was it a realistic comparison to the WTC NO!!!!!!!!

The fire science they demonstrated in the Cardington tests is completely relevant to what the fires did to the WTC towers. Adding the impacts into the equation ultimately makes no difference, because did the impacts alone cause any collapses? "NO". So therefore fire would have to play at least some role too. According to these studies, the hypothesis NIST suggested (and never proved) would not result in the run-away conditions they suggested it would.

reply to post by bsbray11


Look at any of my post I say impact ,then fire, then the collapse of the upper floors if you look at the videos

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Look at any of my post I say impact ,then fire, then the collapse of the upper floors if you look at the videos

What difference is that supposed to make? Impact, yeah... Then fires, okay... Fires don't perform magic on the steel. People study what it does, and one of those studies was the Cardington tests. They concluded that a run-away collapse in a high-rise is unlikely or impossible due to the fact that the internal forces from the thermal expansion (which causes deflection and sagging alike) are redistributed naturally and effectively to deflections of constraining columns where there is the most "slack."

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about Conspiracy Theories.

Conspiracy Theories don't give a damn about the Laws of Physics.

FTFY

Originally posted by bsbray11
...are redistributed naturally and effectively to deflections of constraining columns where there is the most "slack."

EXACTLY. The supports were damaged by the plane impacts making it so there was more sagging with less distribution of energy!

Am I the only person who sees this?

Originally posted by Varemia

Am I the only person who sees this?

Not at all. But it's the sort of inconvenient truth that it'd be a bit much to expect 'truthers' to throw off their cherished beliefs for.

dlb pst

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by bsbray11
...are redistributed naturally and effectively to deflections of constraining columns where there is the most "slack."

EXACTLY. The supports were damaged by the plane impacts making it so there was more sagging with less distribution of energy!

Am I the only person who sees this?

I would say yes, very likely, because technically what you said makes absolutely no sense. The plane impacts have nothing to do with "more sagging," only more heat would cause that.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by bsbray11
...are redistributed naturally and effectively to deflections of constraining columns where there is the most "slack."

EXACTLY. The supports were damaged by the plane impacts making it so there was more sagging with less distribution of energy!

Am I the only person who sees this?

I would say yes, very likely, because technically what you said makes absolutely no sense. The plane impacts have nothing to do with "more sagging," only more heat would cause that.

If there are fewer supports to distribute weight, then that means there is higher stress on the steel that is exposed to the heat. Higher stress means it's easier to bend once it loses less amount of strength than needed otherwise. It's not rocket science.

Originally posted by Varemia
It's not rocket science.

I suppose 'truthers' would expect that inflated balloons shouldn't pop when poked with sharp objects. Underlying principle is essentially the same although I suspect even that'd be lost on them