9/11 was an inside job

[Grumpy]

quadraphonics

I, too, have been at this for years. I also know nothing I say will convince him. But I feel a bit of an obligation to the others who will read this thread. I have covered most of the subject here, anyway. The fact remains that religious fundamentalism and hatred plus the ability to commandeer our own aircraft is all the terrorists needed, but some people cannot avoid the urge to form circular firing squads, blaming anyone and anything rather than accept that simple fact. I'm done, the job has been accomplished and the idiocy exposed. Besides, it was fun(up to a point)to take a ball bat and swing away at the whiffle balls coming over the plate. I would ask that this thread be consigned to the dead letter file, if not the round file in the corner.

Psi

Take your lying crap back to breakfornews, I guarantee that you'll find lots of stupid people who'll hang on your every word there.

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

It's a non-issue. It's like asking what color the sky is. The center of gravity of the top mass will not move anywhere without some force to move it. No such force existed. Therefore the center of gravity remained exactly where it started until the top block dissolved into rubble. When the top of the block tilted one way, the bottom of the block shifted sideways in the opposite direction, shearing the connections between it and the rest of the building, turning into rubble in the process. The center of gravity dropped straight down. The experts don't discuss this because it is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject. The experts rarely discuss the fact that water is wet, for the same reason. It's just plain physics(elementary physics at that).

ROFLMAO

So what provided the energy to rotate 29 stories and shear close to 300 columns? That is more important than the center of gravity and you just admitted that happened. When the plane impacted, the building only deflected 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes.

So how could FIRE do what YOU just described?

Most official story defenders say the top tilted because fire could do that be weakening one side. But you just admitted it ROTATED. How could fire do that? You are so busy trying to WIN on the center of gravity business you gave up something more important.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

Grumpy...do you ever post on JREF forums by another name?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I once heard someone over at JREF give an analogy to try to explain this. I'm not sure if it's totally accurate, but it gets the idea across.

Let's imagine we have a bowling ball...for ease of calculation we will say this bowling ball weighs 100 pounds (that's one hell of a bowling ball!) This bowling ball is suspended by 10 strings. Each string has a breaking strength of 15 pounds. With 10 strings, the 100 pound load is equally distributed between the strings, so that each one supports 10 pounds. Take a pair of scissors and cut one string. The 100 pound load is instantly redistributed among the 9 remaining strings so that each one now supports 11.11 pounds. Well within it's tolerance. Cut another. Now each of the remaining 8 strings support 12.5 pounds. Cut another. Now each of the 7 strings is supporting 14.28 pounds. Really close to it's breaking strength...they are barely holding on.

Now cut one more final string. This will make the 6 remaining strings encounter 16.66 pounds of weight each...well beyond their breaking strength...so the remaining 6 strings will all fail virtually simultaneously and the bowling ball will fall. That's what happened in building 7

The problem with your analogy is that a fire would not BREAK STRINGS in an evenly distributed manner. They would most likely be concentrated where the fire was hotest. That would leave unbroken strings in one area. This would cause the bowling ball to swing to one side.

But the roof line of WTC7 remained perfectly straight except for that slight kink in the middle like a normal controlled demolition. So how could a fire make opposite ends of a building 300 feet apart come down in sync?

The JREFers come up with really crappy physics analogy and claim they are good by not examining them any any detail. Rather like Grumpy.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

The problem with your analogy is that a fire would not BREAK STRINGS in an evenly distributed manner. They would most likely be concentrated where the fire was hotest. That would leave unbroken strings in one area. This would cause the bowling ball to swing to one side.

But the roof line of WTC7 remained perfectly straight except for that slight kink in the middle like a normal controlled demolition. So how could a fire make opposite ends of a building 300 feet apart come down in sync?

The JREFers come up with really crappy physics analogy and claim they are good by not examining them any any detail. Rather like Grumpy.



psik

So what your saying is that the "perps" knew ahead of time that that flaming debris from the tower's collapse would impact Building 7, and cause fires...and they would know ahead of time the twin towers collapse would sever the water mains, so that the sprinklers wouldn't work, and they knew ahead of time the FDNY would be so strapped for resources, that they couldn't fight the fire, and they let it burn for almost 8 hours, then they decided to explode the charges in the building that no one heard, so that no one died, and a building no one heard of collapsed. Yeah...that sounds feasable.

 

[Grumpy]

MacGyver1968

So what your saying is that the "perps" knew ahead of time that that flaming debris from the tower's collapse would impact Building 7, and cause fires...and they would know ahead of time the twin towers collapse would sever the water mains, so that the sprinklers wouldn't work, and they knew ahead of time the FDNY would be so strapped for resources, that they couldn't fight the fire, and they let it burn for almost 8 hours, then they decided to explode the charges in the building that no one heard, so that no one died, and a building no one heard of collapsed. Yeah...that sounds feasable.

At base what he is saying is "Since I am incapable of understanding the physics, it can't be true." It's an attitude you often encounter in magical thinkers. I could explain the physics I taught for over 30 years, but just like a biology teacher cannot get a Creationist raised child to understand the facts, his mind has already been made up, his conclusions already made before he hears the first word. You can lead a horse's patooty to water...

I used to post at JREF, years ago, but I was still Grumpy then too.

And I went through breakfornews with a machete several years ago, they finally banned me because they couldn't deal with the heat I was bringing. It's a real nuthouse over there, there isn't anything that someone there won't take seriously. Chemtrails and concrete cores and spray on c4, oh my.

Grumpy

 

[Carcano]

Building 7 likely had a catastrophic failure of only one column. This triggered a progressive failure of the rest of the building.

Are you suggesting building codes allow for the complete collapse of a building if only ONE support column fails?

 

[Rhaedas]

I disagree that one should not use direct argument against any kind of denier. Granted, if you don't have the time or patience, maybe it's not worth the effort, but even an old subject that has been addressed time and time again should be approached as if it's a new one, simply for the fact that to just blow someone off with insults gives them a lot more credit than if you actually counter their claim, even if for the umpteenth time.

As a tagline I used to see years ago on religious discussion said, remember the lurkers. Someone could google this thread for their first exposure to the topic, and after seeing the presented data from various posters to the claims of demolition, inside job, and just flat "I can't believe it", and the lack of defense of those claims, they'll come away with a lot better picture than if the deniers had been blown off as crazy. Fight lack of knowledge with facts, it's always the best policy.

I for one have learned a few interesting things myself with Grumpy's and others posts, and I'm not even a denier. I watched the events as they unfolded too that day. My wife lost a business client of hers there.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So what your saying is that the "perps" knew ahead of time....

I don't talk about or give a damn about "perps". You keep trying to steer discussion in that direction.

This bowling ball is suspended by 10 strings. Each string has a breaking strength of 15 pounds.

Here is another problem with your analogy. Reality does not conform to mathematical perfection. I tested my paper loops to see what it took to crush them. Some collapsed with 12 washers and others with 15. That is why I have 11 single washers at the top of my model. You can't have perfect strings in the real world.

So how could WTC7 have a perfect fire to weaken perfect columns too make the back edge of the building give way and come down in such a perfectly horizontal manner?

psik

 

[Grumpy]

Carcano

Are you suggesting building codes allow for the complete collapse of a building if only ONE support column fails?

Good question, because it is important.

Building codes are designed to give a certain amount of safety to the occupants of a building, not to protect the building. That hour was so the people could be evacuated safely and the fire department could get on scene and start fighting the fire. Most buildings exceed this standard.

In a perfect world we would build those buildings to resist everything, forever. But that perfection is not possible or cost effective. So building codes design in a calculated safety margin. In the case of the WTC buildings there was ~2 times the strength needed to hold up any conceivable normal load and wind loads up to 150 mph or so and meet those code requirements. To build stronger than that gets increasingly expensive and inefficient in a exponential curve(IE doubling the strength costs four times as much and cuts into floorspace in a similar fashion). You could build to near perfect resistance but you end up with a pyramid that has only tiny spaces to rent(space being the goal of the whole endeavor).

The codes specify that a building will resist ANY structural collapse in a fire for at least an hour(there are various standards of how that is measured), both towers exceeded that standard even though they were seriously damaged IN ADDITION to having fires many times more extensive than the codes considered. It's like the claims that the buildings were designed to survive the impact of a big plane(actually, no consideration or calculations have been found, only claims). They did survive the impacts. But they were not designed to survive that impact AND the huge, fuel-fed, multifloor fires for more than an hour(or actually, at all, the fires envisioned by the codes was a single floor fire with sprinkler system operational and firefighters fighting the fire). Tower 2 DID survive for an hour, Tower 1 survived for two. So the buildings actually exceeded their designed-in safety factor. If the planes impact had not cut the three stairwells many of the people above the impact zones would have had at least a chance to get out, but then if the Titanic would have had more lifeboats maybe no-one would have died there. New technology often has hidden faults found only when disaster happens.

In 7, it was not only one column failing, it was also damage caused by the collapse of Tower 1, the fuel tanks on the critical floors(5-7) and the several hours of unfought fires. The failure of the single column(79)was just the straw that broke the camel's back, leading to the progressive collapse(seismic records indicate that the entire collapse took 18 seconds, only the last 7 of which could be seen in the videos). This building crumbled instead of failing all at once. Groans and other noises were reported by firefighters at 2:00pm, indicating structure was approaching failure, transits measured dangerous leaning of the whole thing and firefighters were pulled away from the vicinity three hours before it collapsed because they knew the building was going to fail. Three hours later it did fail. They made a wise decision when they "pulled it".

By the way, look into what firefighters say about truss frame floors and ceilings. They don't trust trusses for very good reasons, they just do not stand up to fires very well and they fail suddenly and catastrophically. It is a leading cause of firefighter deaths. It's bad enough when individual structural members fail, it's entirely another thing when the whole floor or ceiling comes down at the same time.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

Rhaedas

I disagree that one should not use direct argument against any kind of denier. Granted, if you don't have the time or patience, maybe it's not worth the effort, but even an old subject that has been addressed time and time again should be approached as if it's a new one, simply for the fact that to just blow someone off with insults gives them a lot more credit than if you actually counter their claim, even if for the umpteenth time.

That was my thought as well, daylight is the most effective disinfectant. But I carefully explained what is known about the collapse of WTC 7 and psi didn't even read it(wonder if he key word searched it, that's what he calls research), posting inanely asking the same question as if I had said nothing. So I'm through wasting my time on him. But I will continue to discuss the subject if someone asks cogent questions.

Grumpy

 

[Carcano]

In 7, it was not only one column failing, it was also damage caused by the collapse of Tower 1, the fuel tanks on the critical floors(5-7) and the several hours of unfought fires. The failure of the single column(79)was just the straw that broke the camel's back, leading to the progressive collapse

Are you suggesting that something OTHER than support columns prevent a building from collapsing?

 

[Grumpy]

Carcano

Are you suggesting that something OTHER than support columns prevent a building from collapsing?

Well, in the cases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the perimeter frame also supported the building. In the case of building 7 it was the failure of column 79 that was the final failure that led to collapse. As in MacGyver1968's bowling ball example, it was the last string to be cut that overloaded all the rest, when it failed the rest could no longer stand the load and the building came down.

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

When the top of the block tilted one way, the bottom of the block shifted sideways in the opposite direction, shearing the connections between it and the rest of the building, turning into rubble in the process. The center of gravity dropped straight down. The experts don't discuss this because it is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Most of the OCT believers I have mentioned that to deny that rotation could occur. They claim it just tilted. So what was the moment of inertia of 30 stories that had to weigh at least 100,000 tons. But in addition to that, 283 columns which had to be strong enough to support that weight would have had to be broken to allow that rotation which you insist happened.

Here is a video about the center of rotation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw

I could explain the physics I taught for over 30 years, but just like a biology teacher cannot get a Creationist raised child to understand the facts, his mind has already been made up, his conclusions already made before he hears the first word.

So how does your 30 years of physics account for that rotation which is even more important than the location of the center of mass whose importance you worked so hard to down play? You play the same psychological game as Jonathan Kay of associating anyone that doesn't buy the idiotic Official Conspiracy Theory with Creationists or Moon Hoaxers or JFK conspiracists.

psikeyhackr never had any arguments in the first place, outside of his "I don't understand it, so it can't be true." attitude. He probably needs to go back to breakfornews with killtown and fintan, they think he's a genius(which, compared to christophera with his idiotic concrete core claims, he is). As long as he is playing in that children's sandbox he gets plenty of ego stroking for his delusions, it's just when he interrupts the adult's conversation at a real science forum that he is called out on his idiotic non-sense.

The Curmudgeon of Stupidity has not said my velocity calculation for a mass to reach WTC7 from the top of WTC1 is correct, nor explained what is wrong with it, but claims this is a REAL SCIENCE FORUM. His blather about Einsteinian Physics is of no practical importance in relation to what happened on 9/11. The airliner that impacted the south tower was doing 0.0000821% of light speed so doing calculations for the difference between Einstainian and Newtonian Physics is would just be time wasting idiotic busywork.

psik

 

[Carcano]

Well, in the cases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the perimeter frame also supported the building. In the case of building 7 it was the failure of column 79 that was the final failure that led to collapse. As in MacGyver1968's bowling ball example, it was the last string to be cut that overloaded all the rest, when it failed the rest could no longer stand the load and the building came down.

Having the perimeter wall supporting the whole structure would be extremely unusual in a post 1940s office building.

None of the tall buildings I've ever seen being constructed are built this way...they all have 'curtain' walls mounted on the edge of cement floors, which are supported by dozens of internal columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtain_wall#History

Do you have a link to WTC7 architectural plans...so we can verify?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Well, in the cases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 the perimeter frame also supported the building. In the case of building 7 it was the failure of column 79 that was the final failure that led to collapse. As in MacGyver1968's bowling ball example, it was the last string to be cut that overloaded all the rest, when it failed the rest could no longer stand the load and the building came down.

But how could it come down so perfectly. The strings on the bowling could not be that exact. Some would be stronger than others, they would not all break simultaneously so the bowling ball would swing one way or the other. So how did the roofline of WTC7 stay so straight. I actually do not talk about WTC7 much because it is so uninteresting. A perfect collapse from fire and supposed hurled debris is ridiculous.

psik

 

[Grumpy]

Carcano

Having the perimeter wall supporting the whole structure would be extremely unusual in a post 1940s office building.

It's common practice today to build tubular buildings, with or without a core

As I have explained, the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had perimeter frames made of individual pieces, those frames supported ~50% of the weight of the building and absorbed all wind loads. The cores of all three buildings only supported vertical loads(the other 50%).

There were 57 perimeter frame members and the core contained 25(58-81)core columns. Everything else in the floorplan was floor trusses similar to the towers, hung between the outer frame and the core, with the exception that the floor trusses were attached firmly at both ends in the vicinity of columns 79-81. They served the structural function of bracing those specific columns which supported the East Penthouse, which housed heavy equipment(pumps for the cooling towers, transformers, etc).

None of the tall buildings I've ever seen being constructed are built this way...they all have 'curtain' walls mounted on the edge of cement floors, which are supported by dozens of internal columns.

There was no structural concrete in any of those three buildings. The ONLY concrete in the Towers was in the floors, 4 inches of lightweight concrete poured in the floor pans to walk on, and in the heavier floors of the equipment levels and the core. Building 7 contained cooling towers for the power plant it was built over and three separate sets of diesel generators which had concrete pads under them, but otherwise it was similar to the towers.

Do you have a link to WTC7 architectural plans...so we can verify?

The plans themselves are proprietary(like the secret recipes of Coca-Cola), but there is more than enough info in the NIST report to answer your questions. Download the pdf and enjoy.

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

As I have explained, the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had perimeter frames made of individual pieces, those frames supported ~50% of the weight of the building and absorbed all wind loads. The cores of all three buildings only supported vertical loads(the other 50%).

Like the core didn't sway with the rest of the building.

But if it did sway then how did the force get transferred to the core?

psik

 

[Carcano]

It's common practice today to build tubular buildings, with or without a core

As I have explained, the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had perimeter frames made of individual pieces, those frames supported ~50% of the weight of the building and absorbed all wind loads. The cores of all three buildings only supported vertical loads(the other 50%).

I looked up tubular building systems, and they are specifically designed to resist LATERAL loads like wind pressure, not vertical gravity loads.

A building that completely collapses in a few seconds MUST experience a failure of the majority of its vertical gravity load bearing support columns.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I looked up tubular building systems, and they are specifically designed to resist LATERAL loads like wind pressure, not vertical gravity loads.

That makes no sense. A skyscraper has to do both. The problem is that different sources use language in different vague and ambiguous ways and it gets interpreted in varying ways by different people.

psik