9/11 Poll

My argument is that no statements should be classified as 'stupid'. 'Flawed' is a far less offensive term.

Do I look like the moderator? I have in the past criticized Tony, Headspin and psikey when I felt they went too far. Believe me, while it may be hard to criticize your opponents, I've found that it can be even worse when you criticize your friends. So I've decided I'll generally stick to criticizing those who are criticizing me.

You can also do that by doing -this-, bolding, italics, underlining.. many other options. Many say that using caps locked words is the text equivalent of shouting; I'm one of them.

I never argued otherwise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The collapse of WTC 1 initiated at the 98th floor.

The weight of the building above that floor was 68,295,000 lbs..

The total area of the core columns at the 98th floor was 2,645 in.^2 with their yield strength being an average of about 39,000 psi and there were 47 core columns.

The total area of the perimeter columns at the 98th floor was 3,682 in. ^2 with their yield strength being 65,000 psi and there were 236 perimeter columns.

If all core columns were equal and the core was the only support for the building mass above you would need 31 columns. Remember this is with no perimeter columns.

All of the perimeter columns were equal and if they were the only support for the building mass above you would need 68 perimeter columns.

The actual weight of the severed columns themselves would be somewhat insignificant as the columns only represented about 10% of the weight of the building above.

There is no situation in either the North or South Towers where there was the type of asymmetry you discuss, as far as a fulcrum on just one side of the building. The worst situation one could plausibly use is that of a channel vs. the original square tube. With a channel the stiffeners or side walls counteract the moments, which is what it sounds like you are alluding to as amplification, and allow the load to be taken vertically in compression. There were no significant cantilevered situations or moments in either tower due to the impact damage. Even so, WTC 2's collapse initiated at the 82nd floor which was above the major impact damage. WTC 1's collapse initiated at the 98th floor, which was also above the aircraft impact damage and it also failed on the opposite side of the building from where the aircraft entered.

It sounds like you think asymmetric vertical loading of the columns played a role due to seeing the tilts involved. In reality the tilts were simply due to where the first failures took place. You could say the initial failures were somewhat asymmetric. However, they were not due to asymmetric damage as there were no moments involved about horizontal axes causing asymmetric vertical loading of the columns and you can see this by looking at the collapse initiation of WTC 1. If what you were saying were true then WTC 1 would have had it's initial failure on it's north face but that isn't what happened.

Finally, even the NIST admits that the aircraft impact damage played little to no part in the collapses. As you should be aware their theory is that, in both cases floor trusses cause perimeter columns to be pulled inward causing them to buckle and initiate the collapses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh, no. My comment was directed at you, but you had nothing to do with its creation. So you can't speak for what I was getting at with it.

 

.
Are you attempting to imply that the buildings were stronger than necessary?

How could they possibly have been destroyed by airliners if that were the case?

You are attempting to induce cognitive dissonance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

 

I've spoken to Tony privately about how I think it unlikely that you're a shill. As far as I know, he has never said that he's certain of your shillness

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Are you suggesting that I'm ignoring you? Heck, if I refer to your arguments, I'm clearly not ignoring you.

There's a very big difference between referring to things that I've said and things that you claim that I've said. Remember when I pointed out to you that something that you'd double quoted wasn't something that I'd actually said.

It depends on which one of the above it is...

Trippy, that would only be true if the only 2 people here were you and me; then you could go on about what you believed I said and I'd be powerless to persuade the one person who might be listening to your statements; that is, you yourself. However, this isn't the case; there are many people here; so while you may ignore me, I can still talk to others about your (hypothetical) misconceptions. In a very real way, I'd say that it puts -you- at a disadvantage, as you would be unaware of how I would be undermining your arguments.

Now you're going places. The moderators are clearly the ones to turn to if you feel you're being wronged. If -they- don't listen, your options become rather limited; either find a way to take it to court if, as you suggest, libel is in fact occuring and you've got the interest, money and the time, or just find another place to post.

Trippy, this isn't a court of law; if someone accusses you of something here, it doesn't mean you might end up in jail or face some other sanction. What's more, while your (hypothetical) accuser may have you on ignore, he or she isn't the only person here.

 

Please clarify what you mean by “extremely high”.

All I can find are these photos -
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

I think you are shoehorning the data a little to say that high temperatures were seen only around WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. There are hotspots all over the complex there.

It’s possibly a moot point anyway as those were the buildings which experienced the most burning. So it wouldn’t necessarily be anything suspicious anyway. Correct?



Regarding Jones’ test of mixing aluminum with other materials. I still maintain that mixing some wood chips and plastic in a little pot with aluminum is a poor recreation of what was happening in the towers.

However I don’t actually know what molten stuff was. Did it change color as it fell and cooled? If so, what color?

If it were molten steel, would it be from cutting columns? Wouldn’t there be some very suspicious looking steel in the rubble?

 

This ones been done in another thread. It was the Aluminium Panelling which had melted. However for some reason Scott and maybe even yourself through Aluminium would just be a silvery liquid, while of course suggesting in turn that the temperature was high enough to melt steel.

Incidentally Aluminium can glow when heated and has a colour chart to go with it's temperature level.

 

Your diagram is a two dimensional cross sectional slice and the real situation was three dimensional with still intact columns in every direction. If you were to show all of the slices in front and back of the one you show there would be columns along the full width in many of them.

The situation you show in your diagram did not exist over the full width of the tower, which is what would be needed to cause an issue. What you are doing here is like showing only the inside area of something that was hollowed out. It is not a complete picture.

Additionally, the type of thing you are discussing here would not have been a factor in propagation and it is hard to understand why you think it would.

 

here is someone elses explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&NR=1

it occurred to me that one of the engines or landing gear or both could have been responsible for at least some of this damage.
that corner does look grotesque, probably where the collapse initiated.

edit:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 

If you did an overlay of the building locations onto the infrared photo you would see that the hot spots are specifically under WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

Why don't we see it under WTC 5 and WTC 6 which were burning fiercely all day? It isn't true that only the other three buildings were doing most of the burning.

Incendiaries could have been used to melt and destroy joints and not necessarily to cut the columns.

 

.
Skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up but I am obsessed because the people who claim to be experts on building collapses don't specify the quantities and weights of the components which they admit supported 50% of the weight of the building. They only took 3 years toproduce 10,000 pages and can't tell us the distribution of steel and concrete. The columns got progressively thicker toward the bottom, not just at the bottom.

I'm only obsessed with pointing out the obvious incompetence of the self professed experts and the gullibility of the people that accept the bullshit.

It is just my method of entertaining myself with TOYS.

psik

 

Where did you get this idea? From all the evidence I have seen, it couldn't be aluminum. Steven Jones has gone over the whole issue in great depth, as I present in post 1229 in this thread. I am aware that both leopold and Kenny have challenged his evidence, but I haven't really reviewed their claims. I don't believe either of them have written any peer reviewed papers though.

You know, I just started thinking of something; -regardless- of whether it was melted steel or aluminum, if it were high enough to melt steel, NIST's argument that the building was only heated by fires would be shot; that's because there's no way the fires could have gotten the metal that hot. In any case, aluminum melts way before it slightly incandesces yellow/orange and because the incandescence is so slight, it wouldn't be visible under daylight conditions. At melting temperature, it isn't yellow/orange under any circumstances, glowing heavier metal containers not withstanding.

 

There is a difference between holding themselves up and then suddenly having to hold up dozens of floors of falling mass.

Some of the core columns were seen to still be standing after the floors pancaked around them. So obviously, some of these would have to be left out of the initial collapse wave.