Interesting 9/11 video

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Kittamaru, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    That wasn't me agreeing with you literaly Arne. That was me figuratively agreeing with... Commenting on your behaviour, alluding to the fact that if i had behaved as badly as you have in this thread i'd be too embarrassed to continue the discussion as well.

    Sorry for confusing you, i assumed it was contextually obvious.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    When you can build a physical model that can support itself but completely collapse due to the fall of its top 15% then I will consider the possibility that butt joints are an important issue. But so far I don't know of anyone trying to make a big deal about them besides you.

    What has Dr. Sunder of the NIST said about them? The NIST doesn't even specify the amount of steel on each level even though they admitted in 3 places that they needed the weight distribution of the towers to analyse the motion due to impact.

    *headdesk* all you want. Maybe it will result in an improvement.

    psik
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    To be fair... he didn't say he was agreeing to never speak of it again. He was simply saying it would probably be best. Technically correct...

    If it's "so simple", then why haven't you solved it with any accuracy?

    You made the claim, you back it - I will give you until Monday to produce a physical model that accurately depicts, to scale, both the mass distribution, structural design (flaws and all), and load capacity of the building, scaled to account for differences in specific gravity, as well as a scale airliner, scale fire, et al.

    If you do not reproduce it accurately to within an acceptable margin of error (10% sound fair?) then I will expect you to explain why you, who apparently attends some prestigious engineering school, are unable to do so.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    uke:

    Now that is a funny question.

    Why don't you ask it of the NIST. I am not the one who produced 10,000 pages and spent $20,000,000 without even specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers.

    But you ask me about accuracy when I am the one pointing out that we do not have data. :mufc:

    We can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy without knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. What is simple is figuring out what information is necessary to solve the problem. It is simple to show that mass distribution affects collapse time. So why aren't supposedly "brainy" people asking about it? :shrug:

    Check in a mirror.

    psik
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    Watched it live on TV. The amount of concrete used is easily obtainable.

    Which makes your comments irrelevant then.

    Tall thin building, big plane will full fuel tanks crashing into them and exploding, exposing unprotected steel to that kind of heat from the fire. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's going to destroy the building.

    Then perhaps you should go to a better school.

    Like the University of Wisconsin, which have articles on the "physics" of 9/11 and the WTC buildings and explain it with the complete data.
     
  9. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Various numbers are easily obtainable. But which one is correct?

    If that 425,000 cubic yard number is correct then why doesn't the NIST have it in their 10,000 pages and where was it in the buildings? That would be more than 300,000 tons per building and even if the 6 basement stories were solid blocks of concrete that would account for less than have of it and we know they were not solid blocks.

    So where was that concrete because it would affect the Potential Energy?

    The issue is that "collapse believers" do not ask obvious questions.

    psik
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    The links explain it all. Perhaps you should read them?
     
  11. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    He won't... it is his typical bullshit - try to hand-wave away any real facts and pass off his crazy ideas...

    Why don't you ask them? Perhaps it is and you missed it. Perhaps it isn't relevant to what they were doing at the time.

    To answer, one again, your complaint about the butt joints: The WTC was built around a central tube-core of reinforced concrete and steel - here is a simplified image of the floor design:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And here is a, once again highly simplified, explanation on how the collapses are generally accepted to have occured:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/flash.htm
     
  12. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    I have read Steven Dutch before. I have known about him for years.

    A simple question about dust and Potential Energy is: "how does concrete turn into dust while it is still hundreds of feet above the ground if the definition of Potential Energy is mass times height?" The mass has to fall through that height in order to be converted to Kinetic Energy and the mass remains intact through the fall.

    So watch a video of the top of the south tower turning to dust and explain it with Potential Energy.

    It's a miracle of the 9/11 Religion.

    psik
     
  13. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    ... really? You can't understand this?

    Okay, tell me - what weighs more. 1 ton of concrete blocks, or 1 ton of concrete dust?
     
  14. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    And this has what to do with obtaining the energy to turn the block to dust?

    psik
     
  15. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    You stated, if I'm reading what you stated correctly, that the mass has to fall through some height in order to obtain enough velocity to have the kinetic energy to be ground into dust.

    You also stated "how does concrete turn into dust while it is still hundreds of feet above the ground if the definition of Potential Energy is mass times height?"

    Thus, my statement: It doesn't matter if it's concrete blocks, dust, or lollipops - the MASS of the concrete isn't going to change just because it has been ground into a powder.
     
  16. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Authorities? I saw most of the events of the day live or almost live on TV. I know what happened. I don't need an authority to tell me what I saw mysfel.
    Most people accept it because they watched it. The detailed dynamics of the collapse just isn't very interesting.
    Probably. But you didn't answer my question: Why? Why bother? Or, from the other direction: Suppose someone builds a model and it doesn't collapse in exactly the same way? Then what/so what?

    Whatever the conspiracy theory is that you advocate, the tack you've taken doesn't attempt to prove it, it is just an endless string of complaints about an obscure/mundane part of the events. Ultimately, these complaints don't mean anything. They don't have anything to do with whatever it is you think actually happened.
    Because they are smart people who understand engineering and have better things to do with their time. There is no need to prove something that you already know -- especially something so mundane.
    Well that just makes it even more boring. Without an alternate hypothesis, much less any evidence to support one, what you ask for isn't just boring, it's completely pointless.
     
  17. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Was the concrete in the core the same on every level? Most true believers don't mention concrete in the core except for the floor slabs outside of the elevators.

    One of the funny things about that simplified floor diagram is that no one ever mentions how many of those angle clips there were. How many around the core? How many around the perimeter?

    How did they all give way simultaneously? What would happen if they didn't give way simultaneously? If the floor slab tilts isn't it going to squeeze the core? Wouldn't that create lots more friction?

    What will that do to the collapse time?

    So for 13 years "engineers" and "scientists" don't question how this happened in 25 seconds. But it is easy to show that distribution of mass alone affects collapse time.

    But then not all of the floors are made that way. Only 84 floors use that design. Another minor detail to be ignored.

    So how many of those "clips" were on each of the standard floors? When you BELIEVE there is no need to ask obvious questions.

    psik
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    You can figure out the distribution of steel down a skyscraper by seeing it on television?

    That is really good.

    Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics because human beings are irrelevant to physics.

    psik
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    No, I didn't say that. I said the detailed dynamics of the collapse aren't very interesting. But what I do care about and know is what I saw: the towers collapsed because fuel-laden jetliners crashed into them.
     
  20. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Not interesting to whom? People who couldn't understand it anyway?

    Yeah, fuel-laden is so precise. Planes do tend to contain fuel when they are flying. Peculiar ain't it?

    It was 10,000 gallons, though some sources say less than that, but it was only 40% of capacity. At least you didn't ,make that idiotic "fully fuelled" comment that is so often spoken.

    But the amount of steel isn't important since we are supposed to BELIEVE whatever amount it was it had to weaken and completely collapse in less than two hours because of the heat. It is just so curious that no skyscrapers with bigger and longer burning didn't come close to complete collapse.

    psik
     
  21. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The only one I can speak for with certainty is myself, but I'd say the logical conclusion to draw from the fact that no college engineering team has done what you suggest is that the apparent lack of interest among college engineering students is just that: lack of interest.
    Precision is really not important here.
     
  22. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    No, of course it wasn't "the same" on every level - there were, no doubt, minute differences in composition for each of the thousands of batches of concrete in the building.

    If you look up blueprints of the building, they will be listed there... they have to be because, you know, it's sort of what they followed to build the thing.

    Pro-Tip - they didn't.

    See above

    Possibly - or, more likely, the already-fatigued and overheated/overstressed metal is going to fail, the concrete is going to crack, and the structure is going to crumble... sort of like what we see happening.

    I dunno - why don't you ask the people with years of schooling to figure this out?

    So, you are saying that you are right, when all the people with the engineering degrees and computer simulations and years of experience are wrong?

    What does it matter? It only matters what the composition of the floors that STARTED the collapse were. Once it started, there was no way the building could withstand it.

    Again, look at the blueprints. I'm sure you can count them.

    “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    I don't care what you believe... I care what the facts say.

    Do you understand the kind of heat we are talking about here? Lets assume, for a moment, the fuel tanks were at 25% capacity - a 767 has a maximum fuel capacity of 23,980 U.S. gallons. So, round it up to 24,000 gallons. At 25%, that's still six THOUSAND gallons of Jet A1, which has an open-air burn temperature of just shy of 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit - the melting point of construction grade steel averages around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit. However, as any undergraduate engineer can tell you, metals lose strength as they heat up, losing about half their overall tensile strength, fracture resistance, and deformation resistance at around 60% of their melting point - for structural steel, this would be at around the 1650 degree mark. Check it out, Jet A1, in open air, burns at almost 70% of steels melting point!

    It isn't hard to see WHY this structure failed... the metal reinforcement was weak from extreme heat. The concrete was shattered by the impact of a several thousand ton jetliner at high speed, which also stripped a lot of the fire/heat retardant foam from the metal supports. Honestly, the fact that the buildings stayed standing as long as they did is a goddamn miracle!
     
  23. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Logical?

    With no fire ever having brought down a skyscraper before? Admittedly none had been hit by airliners before, but how does that explain tons of steel hurled hundreds of feet from the towers? I would think it more logical for engineers and scientists to be all over this like white on rice and have detailed explanations by 2003 at the latest.

    But instead we don't have an official source that even specifies the quantity of concrete since 9/11.

    psik
     

Share This Page