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

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Stop talking blah blah blah.....

Got those sources yet Jim? Why do you keep ignoring that request?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You mean to tell me that you think only the perimeter was damaged? And that gravity played no roll on a pivot toward the side with less support? I mean, believe what you want, but I have to say it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

As for Stewie, honestly not even going to respond. He's a troll and is trying to incite ignorance on the part of ATS by implying that anyone who supports the OS is a paid government agent. I guess I'll have to tell my friends that they're agents too, eh? I mean, if we all believe that the OS is true, then we must be in on it, no matter how much research we do. Heck, my dad's an engineer and he hasn't brought up anything about it.

But yeah, I stand by the idea that a plane causing structural damage and creating an unfought fire for an hour or more has the potential to bring down the towers. I believe this because those are the things I can verify.

A. A plane hit the towers
B. Fire raged and debris rained from the towers
C. The towers collapsed
D. WTC 7 sustained damage
E. WTC 7 caught fire
F. WTC 7 collapsed 6-7 hours later

I can't find any evidence for bombs. No sounds of bombs, no appearance of bombs, and no "dustification" as the Judy Wood supporter keeps saying. So far everything has had an explanation and the feeble attempts to make a conspiracy out of a tragedy are not doing a great job. So far the argument things always boil down to is that the Conspiracy Truthers "know" that it couldn't have been planes, and the Regular Truthers just can't see why it wouldn't be the planes.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You mean to tell me that you think only the perimeter was damaged? And that gravity played no roll on a pivot toward the side with less support? I mean, believe what you want, but I have to say it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

A. A plane hit the towers
B. Fire raged and debris rained from the towers

Another scientifically meaningless phrase, "FIRE RAGED".

LOL

All you can come up with is propagandistic bullsh!t and yet skyscrapers that must hold themselves up have been built all over the world.

The diameter of the fuselage 17 feet. The floors in the WTC were 12 feet apart. So what did the floor have to do to the fuselage of the plane by the time it reached the core? FEMA said the fuselage missed the core of the south tower. How much structural integrity did it have and how much damage did it do?

NOBODY KNOWS!!! It is all speculation and guesswork.

I proposed a thought/simulation experiment where 15 stories were dropped on 90 stories through a 5 story gap. That is more damage than the airliner and fire could do. But we would need accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete through the entire building. If the simulation won't collapse then what?

What is wrong with having accurate data?

You just want to keep the issue on the psychological bullsh!t level.

We can't have people thinking rationally about SCIENCE!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Have you never seen a fire? Also, I KNEW you were going to focus on that word... again. Like a child, you can't even think and just piss and moan about the little things. You see, a fire does rage, especially with the amount of smoke pouring out of the towers. Also, something did melt, be it aluminum or any number of other low-temperature melting materials, so there was fire, and it had to have been strong. Since a fire is akin to an angry beast eating up everything it can and growing depending on the oxygen, it is often referred to as a raging fire.

Are you that crazy that you won't even accept the use of the phrase, "raging fire?"

This is getting to be one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever participated, and I'm sure others agree.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Yes the fires raged

North Tower



South Tower



So I would say a good description!!!

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Have you never seen a fire? Also, I KNEW you were going to focus on that word... again. Like a child, you can't even think and just piss and moan about the little things. You see, a fire does rage, especially with the amount of smoke pouring out of the towers. Also, something did melt, be it aluminum or any number of other low-temperature melting materials, so there was fire, and it had to have been strong. Since a fire is akin to an angry beast eating up everything it can and growing depending on the oxygen, it is often referred to as a raging fire.

Are you that crazy that you won't even accept the use of the phrase, "raging fire?"

This is getting to be one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever participated, and I'm sure others agree.

I guess the fire didn't RAGE in that hotel in Beijing since the building did not collapse. ROFL

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I guess the fire didn't RAGE in that hotel in Beijing since the building did not collapse. ROFL

www.youtube.com...

psik

Nope, it's raging too. Nice strawman though.

reply to post by Varemia
You say that you think NIST's models are satisfactory. I disagree. NIST's model for WTC7 for instance does not look anything like the actual collapse of the building in the video-footage. There is contorting and bending of the structure in the model that is evidently not observable in the video. There appears to be a serious disparity here and it remains unexplained. Logic follows that if the model is not accurately simulating the outside of the building when it collapses then what is happening on the inside in the model must also therefore be wrong. However the controversies surrounding the veracity of NIST's models could be cleared up rather quickly I imagine if NIST simply released them for independent testing and then this forum would be considerably quieter as a result. The fact that NIST have chosen not to leads me to think that they do not what these controversies settled perhaps because they know that their models would not stand up to honest scientific scrutiny. NIST is, after all, an agency of the US-government, not an independent scientific research institution. In my eyes this automatically renders all of their data suspect.

reply to post by FDNY343
Sorry, I don't follow you. Does that expanded quote imply that NIST incorporated thermal-conductivity into their DPS-model for the steel?

Good post, Nathan-D. Nice to see that now and then rational minds who understand science post here.

reply to post by Nathan-D

Originally posted by JimFetzerblah blah blah

Hey Jim, how about those sources to back up your claims. You got them yet? It's been almost 2 weeks.

A simple google search would give you some help.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Sorry, I don't follow you. Does that expanded quote imply that NIST incorporated thermal-conductivity into their DPS-model for the steel?

edit on 4-3-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

Which expanded quote? I have posted about 10 quotes from NIST ITT. Which one are you talking about?

I dont have the DPS model info in front of me, as it is a weekend, but I will look at it on Monday to clarify.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Have you never seen a fire? Also, I KNEW you were going to focus on that word... again. Like a child, you can't even think and just piss and moan about the little things. You see, a fire does rage, especially with the amount of smoke pouring out of the towers. Also, something did melt, be it aluminum or any number of other low-temperature melting materials, so there was fire, and it had to have been strong. Since a fire is akin to an angry beast eating up everything it can and growing depending on the oxygen, it is often referred to as a raging fire.

Are you that crazy that you won't even accept the use of the phrase, "raging fire?"

This is getting to be one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever participated, and I'm sure others agree.

I guess the fire didn't RAGE in that hotel in Beijing since the building did not collapse. ROFL

www.youtube.com...

psik

I guess you didn't bother to find out the method of construction!!!!!
Suggest you look up links to the reconstruction of this building.

It was a reinforced concrete core the steelwork had to be replaced!!!

The main problem with you guys is a building on fire is always the same as another building fire you dont have brains to check how they were construted and ignore the fact they were not hit by planes.

www.mediabistro.com...

From that link

planning to remove most of the steel and decorative portions of the building and reconstructing it based on the original plans using its still-intact and relatively healthy concrete bones. No word yet on how long the rebuilding will take, but we’d guess that it might take nearly as long as it did to construct the original, given how much damage the exterior suffered

Important parts bold and underlined!!!

You guys are so focused on trying to prove the os is wrong you MAKE STUPID mistakes that shows both that you dont think! and you dont know what you are talking about!

SHOW a link to another SKYSCRAPER BUILT IN THE 70's hit by a large passenger plane TRAVELING AT A FEW HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR other that the WTC Towers that catches fire and DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!!

Like for Like is a fair comparison NOW do you get it!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Like for Like is a fair comparison NOW do you get it!

We all know only two skyscraper have been hit by airliners since skyscrapers have existed.

Analogies are intellectual training wheels for kids. Adults should get over them and deal with physics.

But even physicists should demand correct data on their subject. Not having data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers after NINE YEARS is ridiculous. But they will look silly demanding the information now won't they? Why weren't they asking about it in 2002?

psik
.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Hi I noticed no reference to the Bejing hotel fire in YOUR reply you brought it up but obviously you had no idea re the construction!

We have a good idea about the mass of steel and concrete in the buildings and its not the 500,000 tons Jim claims.

Hey Jim!! Jim!! Hey, it's been over 2 weeks since my first request for sources. Maybe this next week you'll be able to find them?

Maybe? Jim?? Jiiiiiimmmmm???

Anyone else that might be able to help Jim out, I am sure he would appreciate it....

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Hi I noticed no reference to the Bejing hotel fire in YOUR reply you brought it up but obviously you had no idea re the construction!

We have a good idea about the mass of steel and concrete in the buildings and its not the 500,000 tons Jim claims.

The NIST says 200,000 tons of steel for BOTH building. They NEVER specify a total for the concrete.

Many sources from before 9/11 that agree with the NIST on the steel say 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There were 2 types of concrete used in the towers according to the NIST, 110 lb per cubic foot and 150 lb per cubic foot. Do the calculations and that is more than 300,000 tons of concrete per building but if we don't know the ratio of 110 to 150 we can't get exact numbers.

So why can't a government agency that got $20,000,000 and took 3 years to produce 10,000 pages tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every of the towers? How can we figure out how strong every level had to be?

Not providing that information is a demonstration of incompetence on their part. And why aren't all of our engineering schools making a stink about not having it? Has any engineering school built a physical model that can collapse?

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
blah blah blah same old ****, different post

Have you contacted a relevant engineer to ask them if this calculation is actually needed?

I have a porch on my house that I built quite a few years ago. Does it contain that information? Granted, it's much smaller, but should contain the same information, yes?


Maybe you could also canotact the NIST or the engineering firm to designed the WTC?

I mean, you could get off your arse and do some research.....

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
blah blah blah same old ****, different post

Have you contacted a relevant engineer to ask them if this calculation is actually needed?

I mean, you could get off your arse and do some research.....

What is a RELEVANT Engineer?

The ones that haven't noticed that the NIST never specified the total amount of concrete in the towers even though they did it for the steel?

The ones that haven't noticed that the core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact even though the NIST provides empirical data indicating that the south tower moved 15 inches due to the impact.

9/11 is now a stinking pile of dreck at the feet of the relevant engineers because they have let this problem remain unresolved for NINE YEARS even though it is grade school level physics. At this point all they can do is help maintain ignorance and confusion because an intelligent resolution would reveal they have no integrity.

Any grade school kids can build this and test it for themselves.

www.youtube.com...

You can just accuse me of being lazy because you can't build a self supporting model that can collapse completely. The RELEVANT Engineers should have been demanding the steel and concrete data on the WTC within weeks of 9/11. The Empire State Building was completed before the neutron was discovered and the first electronic computer was built and the transistor was invented. Structural engineering ain't squat. They need to hide information to pretend that it is complicated.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What is a RELEVANT Engineer?

Structural engineers, architects, etc.

Road engineers, electrical engineers, and landscape engineers are not relevant.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The ones that haven't noticed that the NIST never specified the total amount of concrete in the towers even
though they did it for the steel?

Have you contacted a structural engineer to discuss why that might be?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The ones that haven't noticed that the core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact even though the NIST provides empirical data indicating that the south tower moved 15 inches due to the impact.

You seem to have missed a key word there Psikey. And that is SIMULATION.

Other than that, do you have a point?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
9/11 is now a stinking pile of dreck at the feet of the relevant engineers because they have let this problem remain unresolved for NINE YEARS even though it is grade school level physics. At this point all they can do is help maintain ignorance and confusion because an intelligent resolution would reveal they have no integrity.

So, when will we be expecting your paper showing NIST and Purdue wrong? I can recommend a few reputable journals that would publish your work if it check out.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Any grade school kids can build this and test it for themselves.

www.youtube.com...

You can just accuse me of being lazy because you can't build a self supporting model that can collapse completely.

Dude, do you not understand the problem with scaling and modeling?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The RELEVANT Engineers should have been demanding the steel and concrete data on the WTC within weeks of 9/11.

Argument from personal incredulity noted.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The Empire State Building was completed before the neutron was discovered and the first electronic computer was built and the transistor was invented. Structural engineering ain't squat. They need to hide information to pretend that it is complicated.\
psik

So, when do you get your masters in structural engineering? If it was so easy, you could have gotten your doctorate by now. Hell, it's been almost 10 years!

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What is a RELEVANT Engineer?

Structural engineers, architects, etc.

Road engineers, electrical engineers, and landscape engineers are not relevant.

Do structural engineers use electronic computers? What kind did they use to design the Empire State Building? It was completed in 1931.

The ENIAC didn't begin operation until 1945. But it didn't have transistors. They weren't invented until 1947, but they were germanium not silicon.

That is the ridiculous thing about 9/11. The EXPERTS need to pretend this GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS is complicated. The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before 1969.

The EXPERTS need to talk people into doubting their own intelligence.

The NIST can't put the total amount of concrete into 10,000 pages in THREE YEARS for $20,000,000. That takes real intelligence.

psik