Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
Well, we know with certainty that Kevin Ryan is a lying fraud. Jones keeps insinuating that this paper was peer-reviewed. He is lying.
Hope that helps.
headspin,
you could have told me the information i seek was in a PDF at the download link in the abstract you posted.
anyway i looked at the PDF and i noticed that ALL of the samples was submitted to jones.
you don't find that odd? biased even? this can not be seen as "peer reviewed".
second, it is stated that this stuff was some kind of coating.
why wasn't any of this coating found on the girders at the pile?
third, i see no difference, or nearly no difference, between these samples and some of the structural coatings in the links i provided.
frankly i'm highly sceptical of the paper you posted for the following reasons:
first because all of the samples were submit to a single source.
second these samples were not controlled in any manner, one was stored god knows where in a plastic bag.
third, none of the workers reported finding this stuff in the pile or on the girders.
fourth, the samples were submitted well after 9/11, one was in 2007 i believe.
fifth, the composition of these chips relate well with the links i provided for structural coatings.
you could have told me the information i seek was in a PDF at the download link in the abstract you posted.
anyway i looked at the PDF and i noticed that ALL of the samples was submitted to jones.
you don't find that odd? biased even? this can not be seen as "peer reviewed".
second, it is stated that this stuff was some kind of coating.
why wasn't any of this coating found on the girders at the pile?
third, i see no difference, or nearly no difference, between these samples and some of the structural coatings in the links i provided.
frankly i'm highly sceptical of the paper you posted for the following reasons:
first because all of the samples were submit to a single source.
second these samples were not controlled in any manner, one was stored god knows where in a plastic bag.
third, none of the workers reported finding this stuff in the pile or on the girders.
fourth, the samples were submitted well after 9/11, one was in 2007 i believe.
fifth, the composition of these chips relate well with the links i provided for structural coatings.
.
You accused me of not glancing at the NCSTAR1 report but I have already provided more information about it than you have. Functioning outside of reality seems to be your standard operating procedure.
So have you found the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels yet?
How can the engineers you worship have explained what happened without that data?
You don't need to understand things for yourself. You just need an AUTHORITY to worship and tell you what to think. You presume everyone else does.
So how do we get the distribution of steel without the perimeter column info?
psik
Most of us have figured out that you don't know what you're talking about. Explain what you mean by the "distribution" of the steel. Obviously, everyone understands that the NIST reports show the location of EVERY steel column, perimeter and core, in the towers. Tell us why the weights of the perimeter wall panels mean something to you, although no real engineers find any significance.
.
Who is this "most of us" that you presume to speak for?
The NCSTAR1 report says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor, which was 130 feet below the impact point, when the plane hit the building. There is a graph of the building's oscillation for four minutes after impact. Shaking a 400,000 ton building takes a lot of energy, it could only come from the kinetic energy of the plane. So some of the kinetic energy shook the building and some did structural damage.
So an accurate estimate of the structural damage cannot be made without knowing what went into building motion. That cannot be computed without distribution of mass and steel behaves differently from concrete. It is the steel that provides the springiness of the building but steel and concrete provide inertia. That is what this video is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
But the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE are also relevant to the collapse. The steel provides the strength to resist the collapse and both steel and concrete have a lot of inertia to affect the conservation of momentum. That is what this video is about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
Any engineers or scientists claiming to analyze and explain what happened to the buildings must have that information. So why isn't it in a 10,000 page report that took 3 years and $20,000,000?
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post2585.html#p2585
psik
Last edited:
So let's say I wave a magic wand and produce these figures. Now, how do you accurately determine how much of the kinetic energy of the plane was received by the structural components of the building and how much just blew on through the backside? There's no way to know accurately. So having accurate steel and concrete measurements are moot. You could only guess with rough numbers about how much energy was absorbed by the building, so the numbers you been crying about in every post for all these months aren't really useful.
I think I understand what you saying. The plane hit the building and some of it's kinetic energy went in to damaging it, and some of it was absorbed by the elasticity of the building, causing it to sway. You want to know exactly how much the building weighed so you can determine how much of the energy didn't go to damaging the building but was absorbed ..right? Correct me if I'm wrong. The only problem, there's no way to accurately determine the amount of energy the structural components of the building actually experienced. Some of the energy was absorbed by non-structural components..some of it blew completely through the building and out the back. How do you determine the total amount of energy to use with your accurate mass figures?
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
You probably don't realize it but the non-structural components would not absorb energy that was then unfelt by the structure. There is something called a load path that you are failing to consider. The only part of the aircraft energy that would not be in the load path of the building, after the impact, was whatever was left when some parts exited the building. Since we know how far and from what height these remaining parts fell we can determine their remaining energies. Since we know the weight and velocity of the aircraft the total amount of energy brought into the building by the aircraft can be determined.
Not all of the energy would be involved in generating motion of the building as some would have been dissipated as heat and sound at impact. However, these can be estimated and are small fractions of the amount that would actually influence the motion of the building.
Last edited:
OK...I'm not a physicist nor a structural engineer, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no way to tell how much of the total energy of the plane was transfered to the building, and how much went to other things....like what you mentioned, heat dissapation, and bits and pieces hitting desks and bookcases...and other bits just blasting all the way through. You can roughly estimate the amount of energy, but a specific number would be impossible to find, as we don't really know what went on in the inside of the structure.
Without a really accurate calculation of the energy applied to the building, the accurate numbers for steel and concrete distibution that Psi has been repeatedly asking for isn't really relevant. If only one half of the formula has accurate numbers, and the other half is just an estimate, then the product of the equation will not be accurate.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
MacGyver, you should read what I said about the non-structural items (book cases, desks, etc) again. They will transfer their energy to the structural components which stop their movement. The heat and sound dissipations will not be large percentages of the actual energy and they can be estimated. So we can get a very good estimate of the actual energy which caused damage and influenced the building motion. You are wrong here.
What Psikeyhackr is saying is that if we know the mass distribution and the effect on building motion by the impact we can calculate that energy dissipation and deduct it from that of the aircraft to find the amount of energy which went into actual damage.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
The perimeter columns used 12 different grades of steel over the whole building. The NIST report does not tell us where each specific grade is used. It also does not tell us the wall thickness of the perimeter columns at each level of the building. This is important information in ascertaining resistance to collapse. Thanks to Gregory Urich, who determined an approximate weight of the perimeter columns at each story, and the Engineering News Record articles from the late 1960's, which show four grades and a rough distribution of where they were used, we have been able to do rough estimates. However, that isn't the same as having the actual information, which the NIST does possess. The actual sizes of the central core horizontal beams and their connections to the columns have also not been made public.
Last edited:
.
How relevant do you think that is?
The plane was 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the building.
What percentage of the plane do you think went all of the way through the building? Since the plane is such a small percentage in relation to the building mass, what went all of the way through can be totally ignored.
What do you think the word ACCURATE means?
In mathematics the number 1 is equal to 1.000000.
In engineering it is not.
1 means more than 0.5 and less than 1.5
1.000000 means more than 0.999995 and less than 1.000005
The limitations on the accuracy of the distribution of mass in the building are going to be so bad that thinking about what went all of the way through makes no sense.
But whether it was 10% or 50% of the kinetic energy of the plane that shook the building can make a considerable difference in the amount of structural damage that was done to the building by the impact. But to date I have not seen any official source discussing this issue. I have only seen one paragraph in the NCSTAR1 report that says the distribution of weight has something to do with analyzing the effect of the impact.
.
I say you are totally wrong about that. It is like the difference between having a basketball bounce off the rim and not go in and missing by ten feet. As far as getting a basketball score is concerned it makes no difference. But in figuring out whether or not a 200 ton plane can make a 400,000 ton building collapse that much variation matters. If the building moved 12 inches 130 feet below the point of impact then how much did it move at the point of impact? It must have been at least 14 inches. But that means it moved 12 inches 130 feet above the impact at the 92nd floor also. So at least 22 stories of the building moved a foot in less than 3 seconds and we don't know the tons of steel and concrete in that volume. So that is 22 floor slabs and their trusses and those were about 1100 tons each. And I don't know what the core columns and perimeter columns were. Not to mention all of the beams in the core.
But more important to me is that the EXPERTS haven't been pointing out stuff this obvious for SEVEN YEARS. Just hand the plebs any old BS. They will believe ANYTHING! So the people that don't understand the physics don't know when they have been handed a load of crap and act like there is something wrong with anyone that thinks it is crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVqNouxDcfY
Molten thermite? :roflmao:
psik
Last edited:
mac,
have you ever seen psikey post in the physics forum, have you ever been dazzled by his brilliant posts in math or physics?
No? i have not either.
At this point i honestly believe that my posts, which were not addressed btw...oh i was called some interesting names and insults by szamboti and head, but if you cannot get around that post then it is just a fairy tale being perused here by a few simple posters.
It is like if someone puts a roadblock up and they went around it instead of moving it.
have you ever seen psikey post in the physics forum, have you ever been dazzled by his brilliant posts in math or physics?
No? i have not either.
At this point i honestly believe that my posts, which were not addressed btw...oh i was called some interesting names and insults by szamboti and head, but if you cannot get around that post then it is just a fairy tale being perused here by a few simple posters.
It is like if someone puts a roadblock up and they went around it instead of moving it.
Last edited:
manipulating data to fit a scenario is not part of an investigation, unless you a re a railroader. to be honest afaiac szamboti has zero credibility. now he strikes me as a fascist tyrant.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
This comment isn't even worthy of a reply other than to say it is a joke with no basis in reality.
you see the problem is that we are looking at this from a physical evidence standpoint. we look at the evidence and draw a conclusion based of of the actual (real) evidence. then we have a few here who are more abstract in their thought processes and much more forgiving of where the real evidence is pointing.
well that is my opinion.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
I haven't seen evidence that you have tried to understand enough to grasp what the physical evidence actually says. You don't seem to understand the conservation of momentum or the dynamics of impact or should I say the lack of it in the measured fall of the upper block of the North Tower.
- Status