What are the most glaring flaws in the Popular Mechanics "debunking" of 9/11?

Originally posted by GenRadek

This again?

Did you read and comprehend anything I have said?

30 floors can't crush 80 floors, is what I've been saying, right? Now if it was 55 floors crushing 55 floors, do you think it might make a difference?

In the type of demolition in that vid the collapse initiation point is the middle of the structure. If each floor is crushing on impact, falling and static, and if the collapse starts in the middle, all the floors but one or two will be crushed.

BTW that is also not a steel framed structure, try actually doing that with steel, it wouldn't work because weight to strength ratio is higher for steel than masonry. The steel floor plates of the WTC would not shatter if they impacted each other, the concrete might.

What happens when two objects of equal mass collide Gen?

See you keep proving you fail in your understanding of physics, and the WTC collapses, with every post Gen.

Well, till the next time you repeat the same misunderstandings....

Originally posted by ANOK
BTW that is also not a steel framed structure, try actually doing that with steel, it wouldn't work because weight to strength ratio is higher for steel than masonry. The steel floor plates of the WTC would not shatter if they impacted each other, the concrete might.

Actually, to my knowledge there has been no attempt to demolish a steel framed building in that manner, so your statement is fairly groundless.

Just trying to make that clear...

reply to post by ANOK

What happens when two objects of equal mass collide Gen?

Lots of things. Mass isn't the only factor by a long shot. Construction, density, foundation all are factors that will determine the outcome. But they will generally fall down, which is what happened on 9/11.

I was hoping Dylan would just smack that Mitzler dude... without a doubt Loose Change wins hands down. I guess it goes to show you - a man will fight harder for the truth and a man will for a lie.

here is part 1 of 5
www.youtube.com...

Well for starters the entire article is about four pages long, so it's not really covering that much ground. Would you trust a history book that was only four pages long? And appeared in a magazine? Not usually a good source of information, it's not like Popular Mechanics is considered a scholarly work. Secondly it is written by or edited by a guy named Benjamin Chertoff, he says he's no relation to Michael Chertoff but the amount of coincidences that supposedly happened on 9/11 makes that a bit suspicious; plus if they are willing to lie about a government cover up you think they wouldn't just lie to say the two are not related? Third, their supposed proof of a plane is a few parts, like a section of window and a piece of the nose, that's not exactly a whole plane but rather a very tiny fraction of a plane probably less than .0001 percent of the entire (4) planes. Rather than just talking about the facts they have to bring up what the "9/11 truth movement" has to say, which is deceptive because not everyone in a movement believes the same things, so as soon as one person says an far out theory they can dismiss the entire movement, and try and paint all the skeptics as being irrational and illogical, which is a dangerous stance to take, calling all your critics insane, what if a movie producer called all of his critics "insane" that would probably make him look more insane than his critics. The article calls 9/11 theories "wild" and filled with "paranoia" but if you ask me, taking away everyone's fourth amendment rights because some guy in a cave is going to hijack an airplane is more paranoid than a few people chatting on websites.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
BTW that is also not a steel framed structure, try actually doing that with steel, it wouldn't work because weight to strength ratio is higher for steel than masonry. The steel floor plates of the WTC would not shatter if they impacted each other, the concrete might.

Actually, to my knowledge there has been no attempt to demolish a steel framed building in that manner, so your statement is fairly groundless.

Just trying to make that clear...

Could that possibly be anything to do with the fact that it wouldn't work with a steel framed building?

How is it a groundless point when we know the physics involved? Just because it's never been done it doesn't mean we don't know if it can be done. We're not in the middle ages anymore lol. You keep playing this 'if you can't see it how can you know the laws of physics acted in the way it always does' game, that is a bit ridiculous to be honest.

It's a lot easier to break brick/masonry with brick/masonry than steel with steel, just try it yourself sometime. Steel has far more strength per weight than masonry. We don't have to see this in action to know those facts, even though it is seen in action on a daily basis if you opened your eyes a little.

You know the WTC floors were not just concrete right? Concrete with rebar sitting in steel pans. To break up the floors you have to break up the rebar, and the steel pans. You can drop steel plate on steel plate all day long, and you're going to be left with steel plate.

Just trying to make that clear...

Originally posted by hooper
But they will generally fall down, which is what happened on 9/11.

Wrong answer.

This is getting boring, I'm not sure how to answer this without starting all over again, and repeating what I've already said in this thread. You obvioulsy don't follow along, just make up some answer for the last post, whether it takes into account what has already been discussed or not.

You first say lots more things than mass is involved, and then you say the above, completely ignoring the mass of the building completely.

But of course even the most dense 3 year old knows things don't just generally 'fall down', and there IS a lot more involved in it than 'just falling down'.

For the sake of this argument MASS is extremely important to the point that you have to ignore it in order for your fantasy to work. (I didn't say 'OS fantasy' because the OS did not even explain the WTC collapses, this is the fantasy of desperate OS supporters.)

MASS is what keeps the 30 floors from crushing 80 floors of equal, or more mass. MASS is why you don't like Newtons laws of motion, because it IS mass that determines the damage received by colliding objects. Yes other things come into play, but only when the major physical laws have already been explained, and they haven't, and they can't be explained by the structures construction. In fact the opposite would be more the case, the buildings structure would resist its own collapse.

reply to post by ANOK


Actually, you are assuming (key word!) that the physics would not allow it. Until it is scientifically tested, it is still just an assumption and holds no factual weight.

For example, we all know gravity works. That is a fact that anyone can test, and until someone drops a ball and it goes up instead of down, people will believe that gravity exists and pulls things toward the earth. It is verifiable because anyone can test it and see its effects.

On the other hand, we have demolitions possibilities. You have two demonstrations of collapse under similar circumstances (albeit the same day). Other demonstrations of similar collapse mechanics have been witnessed in concrete structures, but never tested in steel structures.

Rather than look for support for your idea using thorough testing of ideas to make sure that you're not blowing steam, you say "we don't have to do that because we already know what would happen." Well, sorry bub, but that's not how the world works. Just because it fails in your mind doesn't necessarily mean it will work that way in real life. Do you know how many scientists make predictions and stake their careers on their ideas, only to find out that they were wrong about the mechanics the ENTIRE time? Science is a long drawn out history of people proving their expectations wrong and finding out what was actually right, so until we test this idea, you CANNOT SAY CONCLUSIVELY THAT IT CANNOT HAPPEN.

reply to post by ANOK

30 floors can't crush 80 floors, is what I've been saying, right? Now if it was 55 floors crushing 55 floors, do you think it might make a difference?

So when 30 floors impact one floor, what happens to that floor? Does it disappear? Vanish? Its mass just no longer exists and is relagated to the 10th dimension? Come now ANOK, I know you know better than that.

What happens when two objects of equal mass collide Gen?

I wasnt aware that the WTC were solid one piece objects made of the exact same material without any voids, spaces, or connections.


Plus, again, you are forgetting that the floors themselves were not solidly connected to the whole building as in a conventional building with a conventional steel skeleton supporting the entire structure. The floors in the WTC were just steel decking placed on top of trusses and each end was just attached to a welded on seat, plus a dampener. There was nothing else along the span of the floor truss that added a vertical support. That was the the whole idea of "tube-in-tube". And exterior set of vertical columns and an interior section of vertical columns that were connected by long span trusses that are very similar to those used in common structures' roofs, like warehouses. No more columns to take up space nothing. Great for large, unimpeded spaces for business, offices, that can be sectioned off with drywall, sheetrock, etc to each owners delight. Not like in regular steel skeleton structures where there are vertical columns throughout the structure, and not allowing much wide open spaces. When the WTC started to collapse, all that stood in the way of the falling 30+floors was a large wide open floor, which were held up by a series of 5/8" and 1" bolts on each side of the floor trusses. There was absolutely nothing in terms of structure that would have stopped the collapse, and the force was readily apparent when searching through the steel, the seats on which the floor trusses sat, were completely torn off from the exterior and interior columns. This is why you are using faulty assumptions, as the WTC was not just a solid perfect body that had two perfect solid bodies impacting each other. I dont care how many times you say "equal and opposite reactions" and "N3rdL forbids it", you are just wrong in your assumption.

Once the collapse began, the 30 floors moved down as one mass, impacted the floor below, crushing it, and then the mass of the floor destroyed added to the mass of the collapsing section. Then it was nothing more than a chain reaction, as the next floor was impacted not by 30 floors, but the remains of 31 floors. Then the one below was impacted by the remains of 32, and so on and so on. The lower 80 floors is not a solid object that will shrug off the 30 floors moving down in one unit. What you have to get through your head is that you have 30 floors moving as one unit impacting 80 seperate floors below. One floor is crushed, it is now a part of the mass that is moving down. Also what else is happening? Mass is constantly being added to the initial mass that is moving down due to gravity. Each floor destroyed is now added into the initial mass. What happens to the force of the debris when mass is added as it collapses?

reply to post by Yankee451


Well gee, nice job there attacking his introduction, and some minor details, but I've noticed you didnt go into an detail as to his calculations, his models and diagrams, or anything truly relevant. Why is that? Too complicated? How are his mathematics and calculations wrong? How are his observations and models wrong?

Nice try Yankee.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Well gee, nice job there attacking his introduction, and some minor details, but I've noticed you didnt go into an detail as to his calculations, his models and diagrams, or anything truly relevant. Why is that? Too complicated? How are his mathematics and calculations wrong? How are his observations and models wrong?

Nice try Yankee.

Generally pathetic?

GenRadek, I appreciate your position. If I were trying to throw sand into the eyes of my opponents and the readers, I might try the same transparent tactic. I have no doubt his math is correct, and in fact that is what you were asking, correct?

It is the methods he used to create his model, prior to applying his math that I question. But you knew that.

I took the time to address your report, please take the time to address my observations.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So when 30 floors impact one floor, what happens to that floor? Does it disappear? Vanish? Its mass just no longer exists and is relagated to the 10th dimension? Come now ANOK, I know you know better than that.

But you don't have 30 floors hitting one floor, you have 30 floors hitting 80 floors. Didn't you understand my explanation?

I can only go by what happened, and all the floors were gone post collapse. So when do you think the floors were pulverized, according to the OS? The only way it seems possible, if explosives were not involved, is when the floors impacted each other. I'm not going to explain the physics again as to how the 30 floors could have not lasted long enough to completely pulverize the lower 80 floors.

I wasnt aware that the WTC were solid one piece objects made of the exact same material without any voids, spaces, or connections.

Well no one said they were. If you want me to use a different term to ease your misunderstanding I will, lets replace solid object with 'many solid objects all constructed to have a safety factor of at least x2, all joined to act together in order to keep the building from collapsing from it's own weight', or something similar.

Do you really need every single thing explained in minute detail just so you have nothing to nit pic at?

Plus, again, you are forgetting that the floors themselves were not solidly connected to the whole building as in a conventional building with a conventional steel skeleton supporting the entire structure. The floors in the WTC were just steel decking placed on top of trusses and each end was just attached to a welded on seat, plus a dampener. There was nothing else along the span of the floor truss that added a vertical support. That was the the whole idea of "tube-in-tube". And exterior set of vertical columns and an interior section of vertical columns that were connected by long span trusses that are very similar to those used in common structures' roofs, like warehouses. No more columns to take up space nothing. Great for large, unimpeded spaces for business, offices, that can be sectioned off with drywall, sheetrock, etc to each owners delight. Not like in regular steel skeleton structures where there are vertical columns throughout the structure, and not allowing much wide open spaces. When the WTC started to collapse, all that stood in the way of the falling 30+floors was a large wide open floor, which were held up by a series of 5/8" and 1" bolts on each side of the floor trusses. There was absolutely nothing in terms of structure that would have stopped the collapse, and the force was readily apparent when searching through the steel, the seats on which the floor trusses sat, were completely torn off from the exterior and interior columns. This is why you are using faulty assumptions, as the WTC was not just a solid perfect body that had two perfect solid bodies impacting each other. I dont care how many times you say "equal and opposite reactions" and "N3rdL forbids it", you are just wrong in your assumption.

Once the collapse began, the 30 floors moved down as one mass, impacted the floor below, crushing it, and then the mass of the floor destroyed added to the mass of the collapsing section. Then it was nothing more than a chain reaction, as the next floor was impacted not by 30 floors, but the remains of 31 floors. Then the one below was impacted by the remains of 32, and so on and so on. The lower 80 floors is not a solid object that will shrug off the 30 floors moving down in one unit. What you have to get through your head is that you have 30 floors moving as one unit impacting 80 seperate floors below. One floor is crushed, it is now a part of the mass that is moving down. Also what else is happening? Mass is constantly being added to the initial mass that is moving down due to gravity. Each floor destroyed is now added into the initial mass. What happens to the force of the debris when mass is added as it collapses?

edit on 3/25/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

Yes I've heard that explanation a million times. Again you are ignoring the laws of motion and moment conservation.

You are contradicting yourself also, it can not be 30 floors hitting ONE floor, it is 30 floors hitting 80 floors.

If you want to include all 30 floors, then you have to include all 80 floors, as they BOTH act as one block, or ONE floor. I already explained this and you just ignored it.

Equal and opposite reaction. If the impacted floor is going to be crushed by the falling block, then the forces are equal on both. BOTH floors are attached to the columns in the same way, if the fasteners are compromised on the impacted floors then they will also be equally compromised on the falling floor. They both have the same mass and the same fasteners, the mass of the floors above the one impacting floor is less than the mass of the floors bellow the impacted floor.

The big thing that is missing in your hypothesis is the falling floors, where did they go? If the falling floors had the mass to crush through 80 floors then where did they go? The crush up hypotheses is nonsense, there is no reason they top section would crush itself if it was strong enough to crush through 80 floors.

A true progressive/pancake collapse does not work like that, floors don't crush lower floors while staying intact themselves. The floors impact and either crush each other or they simply stack up in a PANCAKE. There HAS to be intact floors left in the footprint because there is not enough energy to completely destroy themselves.

You really have to come up with something better than the tired old story we've been debunking for years to convince me mate.

Originally posted by Varemia
Until it is scientifically tested, it is still just an assumption and holds no factual weight.

Newtons laws are not scientifically testable? Or do you mean objects falling on objects has not been scientifically tested? Either way you're wrong. It's not an assumption, we know exactly how colliding objects react whether they're falling through space, or moving along the ground. That is why we have Newtons laws of motion, because we KNOW.

Those laws don't change, ever, that's why they are laws and NOT assumptions.

For example, we all know gravity works. That is a fact that anyone can test, and until someone drops a ball and it goes up instead of down, people will believe that gravity exists and pulls things toward the earth. It is verifiable because anyone can test it and see its effects.

LOL you can also test colliding objects, by actually colliding them.

All you are trying to do is create doubt in my claims, but anyone with a basic understanding of physics will know what you're saying is nonsense.

reply to post by ANOK


Have you ever watched mythbusters? The forces going on can greatly vary depending on the location, mass, speed, and material. You can't just drop a bowling ball on some cement and assume that a plane can't tear through steel. (I know that's not a proper example at all, but I'm just making a point.

Originally posted by ANOK
because it IS mass that determines the damage received by colliding objects. Yes other things come into play, but only when the major physical laws have already been explained, and they haven't, and they can't be explained by the structures construction. In fact the opposite would be more the case, the buildings structure would resist its own collapse.

edit on 3/21/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob

So explain how bullets can puncture through a concrete wall?

Explain how a paint fleck can cause a huge crack in the space shuttle's windshield?

Here is a simple experiment that anyone can try.

Take a soda can. Any soda can will do. Beer cans will work also.

Place it on a level, flat, solid surface.

Now, place your fot on top of it, and slowly add your weight to it, making sure to place you foot on the middle, and use straight down pressure. Does the can immediately collapse? Nope.

Now, raise your foot 1 foot from the same can, and quickly stop on the can. Does it crush? Yes. That is the difference between a static load, and a dynamic load.

Very simmilar to what occurs during the collapse of the towers.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
So when 30 floors impact one floor, what happens to that floor? Does it disappear? Vanish? Its mass just no longer exists and is relagated to the 10th dimension? Come now ANOK, I know you know better than that.

But you don't have 30 floors hitting one floor, you have 30 floors hitting 80 floors. Didn't you understand my explanation?

I can only go by what happened, and all the floors were gone post collapse. So when do you think the floors were pulverized, according to the OS? The only way it seems possible, if explosives were not involved, is when the floors impacted each other. I'm not going to explain the physics again as to how the 30 floors could have not lasted long enough to completely pulverize the lower 80 floors.

I wasnt aware that the WTC were solid one piece objects made of the exact same material without any voids, spaces, or connections.

Well no one said they were. If you want me to use a different term to ease your misunderstanding I will, lets replace solid object with 'many solid objects all constructed to have a safety factor of at least x2, all joined to act together in order to keep the building from collapsing from it's own weight', or something similar.

Do you really need every single thing explained in minute detail just so you have nothing to nit pic at?

Plus, again, you are forgetting that the floors themselves were not solidly connected to the whole building as in a conventional building with a conventional steel skeleton supporting the entire structure. The floors in the WTC were just steel decking placed on top of trusses and each end was just attached to a welded on seat, plus a dampener. There was nothing else along the span of the floor truss that added a vertical support. That was the the whole idea of "tube-in-tube". And exterior set of vertical columns and an interior section of vertical columns that were connected by long span trusses that are very similar to those used in common structures' roofs, like warehouses. No more columns to take up space nothing. Great for large, unimpeded spaces for business, offices, that can be sectioned off with drywall, sheetrock, etc to each owners delight. Not like in regular steel skeleton structures where there are vertical columns throughout the structure, and not allowing much wide open spaces. When the WTC started to collapse, all that stood in the way of the falling 30+floors was a large wide open floor, which were held up by a series of 5/8" and 1" bolts on each side of the floor trusses. There was absolutely nothing in terms of structure that would have stopped the collapse, and the force was readily apparent when searching through the steel, the seats on which the floor trusses sat, were completely torn off from the exterior and interior columns. This is why you are using faulty assumptions, as the WTC was not just a solid perfect body that had two perfect solid bodies impacting each other. I dont care how many times you say "equal and opposite reactions" and "N3rdL forbids it", you are just wrong in your assumption.

Once the collapse began, the 30 floors moved down as one mass, impacted the floor below, crushing it, and then the mass of the floor destroyed added to the mass of the collapsing section. Then it was nothing more than a chain reaction, as the next floor was impacted not by 30 floors, but the remains of 31 floors. Then the one below was impacted by the remains of 32, and so on and so on. The lower 80 floors is not a solid object that will shrug off the 30 floors moving down in one unit. What you have to get through your head is that you have 30 floors moving as one unit impacting 80 seperate floors below. One floor is crushed, it is now a part of the mass that is moving down. Also what else is happening? Mass is constantly being added to the initial mass that is moving down due to gravity. Each floor destroyed is now added into the initial mass. What happens to the force of the debris when mass is added as it collapses?

edit on 3/25/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

Yes I've heard that explanation a million times. Again you are ignoring the laws of motion and moment conservation.

You are contradicting yourself also, it can not be 30 floors hitting ONE floor, it is 30 floors hitting 80 floors.

If you want to include all 30 floors, then you have to include all 80 floors, as they BOTH act as one block, or ONE floor. I already explained this and you just ignored it.

Equal and opposite reaction. If the impacted floor is going to be crushed by the falling block, then the forces are equal on both. BOTH floors are attached to the columns in the same way, if the fasteners are compromised on the impacted floors then they will also be equally compromised on the falling floor. They both have the same mass and the same fasteners, the mass of the floors above the one impacting floor is less than the mass of the floors bellow the impacted floor.

The big thing that is missing in your hypothesis is the falling floors, where did they go? If the falling floors had the mass to crush through 80 floors then where did they go? The crush up hypotheses is nonsense, there is no reason they top section would crush itself if it was strong enough to crush through 80 floors.

A true progressive/pancake collapse does not work like that, floors don't crush lower floors while staying intact themselves. The floors impact and either crush each other or they simply stack up in a PANCAKE. There HAS to be intact floors left in the footprint because there is not enough energy to completely destroy themselves.

You really have to come up with something better than the tired old story we've been debunking for years to convince me mate.

edit on 3/25/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob

Where do all the broken floors go in your logic? Do they dissappear?

Where do they go? They're gone in your logic. Where does it go?

reply to post by ANOK


No, you have 30 floors hitting one floor. Then you have 31 floors hitting one floor, then 32....33....34.......

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK

 

No, you have 30 floors hitting one floor. Then you have 31 floors hitting one floor, then 32....33....34.......

Then, 33, 34, 32, 31, 32, 33, etc. and so on.

Remember to take into account that some floors were ejecting. It's how WTC 7 sustained a lot of its damage. Still, the number of floors does keep adding up, and it's something with many people here can't seem to understand.

Originally posted by FDNY343
So explain how bullets can puncture through a concrete wall?

They can? What bullets mate? You need to be far more specific because I know for a fact a regular round will not penetrate a concrete wall, most won't even penetrate a car door. I was in the military mate, you need to do better than that to convince me.

Explain how a paint fleck can cause a huge crack in the space shuttle's windshield?

Hmmmm can you?

Here is a simple experiment that anyone can try.

Take a soda can. Any soda can will do. Beer cans will work also.

Place it on a level, flat, solid surface.

Now, place your fot on top of it, and slowly add your weight to it, making sure to place you foot on the middle, and use straight down pressure. Does the can immediately collapse? Nope.

Now, raise your foot 1 foot from the same can, and quickly stop on the can. Does it crush? Yes. That is the difference between a static load, and a dynamic load.

Very simmilar to what occurs during the collapse of the towers.

LOL you do realise that your leg is not just dead weight right, you have muscle pushing it down like a mechanical press, or a piston. That is not dead weight falling on dead weight.

Try dropping cans on cans to get a closer analogy, like a third of a can falling on a whole can. You OSers fail every time with your analogies.

Originally posted by ANOK
They can? What bullets mate? You need to be far more specific because I know for a fact a regular round will not penetrate a concrete wall, most won't even penetrate a car door. I was in the military mate, you need to do better than that to convince me.

7.62x51. I've done it quite a few times.

Originally posted by ANOK

Hmmmm can you?

Yes, kinetic energy.

Originally posted by ANOK

LOL you do realise that your leg is not just dead weight right, you have muscle pushing it down like a mechanical press, or a piston. That is not dead weight falling on dead weight.

Try dropping cans on cans to get a closer analogy, like a third of a can falling on a whole can. You OSers fail every time with your analogies.

Fine, Replace foot with cinder block. It will still work just as I described. You can even lower the cinder block to 6 inches if you would like. It doesn't matter.