Interesting 9/11 video

[Trippy]

What's the point of discussing anything with one such as you?

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.

 

[psikeyhackr]

*headdesk* Just... just stop. Seriously. I would explain to you, again, why the butt joints are important... but you would just ignore it, again, because it flies in the face of whatever fanciful "truth" you so desperately want to believe.

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

 

[Kittamaru]

What's the point of discussing anything with one such as you?

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...

I haven't said anything about any conspiracies because I don't give a damn.

But "scientists" not clearly resolving a simple physics problem in 13 years is certainly curious. All you offer are distractions.

50 buildings over 1,000 feet tall have been completed since 9/11 and the mass distribution of skyscrapers doesn't come up in discussions of the supposed "collapses". It is not difficult to write a computer program demonstrating that mass distribution affects collapse time. So how could the north tower come down in 25 seconds?

http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306&sid=523fdf79e2a447939b09be31a4dacaea#64306

This raises the question of how much "simple science" is supposed to be understood by THE MASSES.

psik

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

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

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.

 

[psikeyhackr]

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

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

 

[Bells]

So all you have is BELIEVE WHAT AUTHORITY TELLS YOU when they can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Watched it live on TV. The amount of concrete used is easily obtainable.

Conspiracies are irrelevant.

Which makes your comments irrelevant then.

This is just about physics. Expecting everyone to accept skyscrapers collapsing completely due to a small percentage at the top without explaining about how mass had to be distributed to hold itself up is ridiculous. You are simply advocating a pseudo-science religion. Everyone is supposed to worship those who claim to know but do not have to PROVE their claims.

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.

The engineering school I attended now charges $20,000 per semester. But they don't comment on 9/11. The 9/11 Affair is scientific bullshit. Any supposed collapse should be completely explainable with nearly complete data.

psik

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.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Watched it live on TV. The amount of concrete used is easily obtainable.

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

 

[Bells]

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

The links explain it all. Perhaps you should read them?

 

[Kittamaru]

The links explain it all. Perhaps you should read them?

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

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

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:

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

 

[psikeyhackr]

The links explain it all. Perhaps you should read them?

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

 

[Kittamaru]

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

... really? You can't understand this?

Okay, tell me - what weighs more. 1 ton of concrete blocks, or 1 ton of concrete dust?

 

[psikeyhackr]

... really? You can't understand this?

Okay, tell me - what weighs more. 1 ton of concrete blocks, or 1 ton of concrete dust?

And this has what to do with obtaining the energy to turn the block to dust?

psik

 

[Kittamaru]

And this has what to do with obtaining the energy to turn the block to dust?

psik

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.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So all you have is BELIEVE WHAT AUTHORITY TELLS YOU when they can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

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.

Expecting everyone to accept skyscrapers collapsing completely due to a small percentage at the top without explaining about how mass had to be distributed to hold itself up is ridiculous.

Most people accept it because they watched it. The detailed dynamics of the collapse just isn't very interesting.

Any supposed collapse should be completely explainable with nearly complete data.

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.

Why hasn't any engineering school done a model to prove anything yet?

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.

I haven't said anything about any conspiracies because I don't give a damn.

But "scientists" not clearly resolving a simple physics problem in 13 years is certainly curious.

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.

 

[psikeyhackr]

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:

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

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

 

[psikeyhackr]

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.

Whatever the conspiracy theory is that you advocate,

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

 

[Russ_Watters]

You can figure out the distribution of steel down a skyscraper by seeing it on television?

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.

 

[psikeyhackr]

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.

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

 

[Russ_Watters]

Not interesting to whom?

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.

Yeah, fuel-laden is so precise.

Precision is really not important here.

 

[Kittamaru]

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.

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.

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?

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.

How did they all give way simultaneously?

Pro-Tip - they didn't.

What would happen if they didn't give way simultaneously?

See above

If the floor slab tilts isn't it going to squeeze the core? Wouldn't that create lots more friction?

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.

What will that do to the collapse time?

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

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.

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?

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

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.

So how many of those "clips" were on each of the standard floors?

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

When you BELIEVE there is no need to ask obvious questions.
psik

“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.

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

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!

 

[psikeyhackr]

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.

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