9/11 was an inside job

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

The point is enough steel could not have been heated to weaken in two hours to collapse regardless.

That is why you exaggerate the quantity of jet fuel.

If the steel was equally distributed there would have been 900 tons on each level. So even if there was only 450 tons of steel it still conducts heat. It would have been conducted to floors without fires. So the argument that planes could bring the buildings down in less than two hours has always been absurd

So the end of a 10 foot bar of steel cannot be heated to a red glow in a fire without the whole bar glowing red? When you realize just how stupid that idea is, you will have provided the logic to understand just how stupid what you just posted is.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

The building had to be designed to withstand wind shear forces from any direction.

A kite can withstand wind from any direction. So can a palm tree. Or a Yugo. You're not even close to what happened. You say force, like it means something to you. Just what does it mean? How much force is there in a 1 m/s wind and how much in 1 m/s airplane? Until you actually try to connect the dots you have nothing.

The difference with an aircraft impact is that it is concentrated in a small area but it is over quickly.

Being over quickly is what is so bad. Energy divided by time is power. As the time to transfer the energy decreases, the power increases. Being over quickly is what makes a bomb so destructive. Being over quickly is what makes a small slug capable of penetrating lumber when fired from a muzzle. Being over quickly is what makes a lightning stroke capable of blasting a large tree out of the ground. Do you even know the relationship between energy, power and force? You would need to start here. If you had even a clue, that is.

The buildings might have to withstand high winds for hours or even days.

Another consequence of practicing physics without a license. The upper limit on power is

P = 1/2 ρ A v[sup]3[/sup].​

A is surface area, ρ is the density of air, and v is the wind velocity. Now just how much power are you talking about? Hint: stick with kilograms, meters, seconds, or you'll screw it up.

The towers were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. So that might come to 26 inches at the 81st floor where the plane impacted the south tower.

Since the principle in a collision is conservation of energy, not conservation of sway, you have to be able to explain why this matters. Until you address the laws of physics, you can't possibly hope to pretend to use numbers and expect it to mean anything. I can get all the numbers I want from a lotto ticket. Then we can sit and argue all day about which numbers rule, and which drool. So far, yours just suck, as in a vacuum, since they need math to have any practical use.

The empirical data from the NIST indicates the building deflected 15 inches and then oscillated for four minutes.

Empirical? You mean someone just happened to have a laser on a reflector at the 81st floor at the time the plane slammed into it? Suppose I told you the number was 16". Or 14". Can you say with certainty that the building would still be standing under any amount of sway? "Build to withstand 36 inches" is irrelevant, just as "good for 50,000 miles" is irrelevant to getting a flat tire. You can overinflate a new tire the day you buy it and you'll wake up with a steel plate in your head. Which is kind of what your pseudoscience is like. And compressed air - that's just like the wind right? When you get around to proving to me that a jetliner slamming into a building has less power than a high wind, you lead me down this blind alley. Until then, this is all styrofoam.

Your physics drama is so impressive! I notice you don't actually include any hard data about anything.

Says the dramaturge. It's not the hard data that's the killer for you, it's the math and science that applies them that leaves you on the 81st floor trying to bat away an incoming aircraft with a large fan. See if you can do a simple math problem. Or at least be able to speak intelligently about the implications of the math rather than pulling conclusions out of your tailpipe.

 

[GeoffP]

The point is enough steel could not have been heated to weaken in two hours to collapse regardless.

That is why you exaggerate the quantity of jet fuel.

You're deliberately evading Rhaedas' point. Did the jet fuel burn for two hours?

 

[GeoffP]

A kite can withstand wind from any direction. So can a palm tree. Or a Yugo. You're not even close to what happened. You say force, like it means something to you. Just what does it mean? How much force is there in a 1 m/s wind and how much in 1 m/s airplane? Until you actually try to connect the dots you have nothing.

I withstand wind from any direction also. However, the other day it blew me over. This can only mean I was the victim of a controlled demolition. I demand a full inquiry and my own website.

 

[Rhaedas]

Strawman. The fuel helped start the fires. They weren't the main source of heat. And you're claiming that all the heat was conducted through the bolts holding the steel beams together? They weren't one piece, nor would they be a perfect conductor. Nor do you need all the steel to weaken evenly, you just need enough to breach what the safety range was to continue to hold the building up. Once it began to go, the remaining support's load would also increase, and you have a cascading failure. You can see in progressive pictures sides of the building beginning to buckle. But you continue to reach for anything that may not have a clear answer to be a reason why it must not have happened.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Another consequence of practicing physics without a license. The upper limit on power is

P = 1/2 ρ A v[sup]3[/sup].​

A is surface area, ρ is the density of air, and v is the wind velocity. Now just how much power are you talking about? Hint: stick with kilograms, meters, seconds, or you'll screw it up.

You can look up and quote an equation. I am really impressed. So why did you stop there?

It does not change the fact that buildings must be designed to take wind loads for hours and an airline impact is over in seconds. The difference is in concentration. Your coming up with an equation does not change the empirical data of the deflection.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

So the end of a 10 foot bar of steel cannot be heated to a red glow in a fire without the whole bar glowing red? When you realize just how stupid that idea is, you will have provided the logic to understand just how stupid what you just posted is.

Grumpy

Hey, Grumpy! Remember those 30 stories that you said rotated around their center of gravity and must have sheared off columns to do?

You haven't explained that and you are changing subject. YOU said it happened not me. You provided the picture not me.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Strawman. The fuel helped start the fires. They weren't the main source of heat. And you're claiming that all the heat was conducted through the bolts holding the steel beams together? They weren't one piece, nor would they be a perfect conductor.

Talk about STRAWMAN. More exaggeration. Who said anything had to be a perfect conductor? And if bolts are holding two pieces of steel together the conduction is not going to be just through the bolts. And how much of the steel in the core was welded together? Was any of it welded together? When do we ever see good pictures of joints in the core?

But we see those truss flanges again, and again, and again, and again....

That seems to be standard marketing technique. We are bombarded with what we are supposed to think and whatever we are not supposed to think about tends to disappear. Like the quantity of concrete in the towers. But the core supported 53% of the buildings weight not the trusses.

psik

 

[Rhaedas]

Talk about STRAWMAN. More exaggeration. Who said anything had to be a perfect conductor? And if bolts are holding two pieces of steel together the conduction is not going to be just through the bolts. And how much of the steel in the core was welded together? Was any of it welded together? When do we ever see good pictures of joints in the core?

Yours was a strawman, no one claims jet fuel was the heat source. Mine was not, I was asking why you think that steel beams connected by bolts, rivets, welds, whatever, would be able to dissipate all the generated heat from the fires, because, as Grumpy pointed out, and as you brushed off as changing the subject (ironically), even a solid rod of metal can be red hot on one end, and not on the other. Ergo, the heat is not perfectly conducted.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You're deliberately evading Rhaedas' point. Did the jet fuel burn for two hours?

The north tower came down in less than two hours. So we should have data on how much steel was in the area to have an idea how much energy was required to get the steel hot enough. Especially considering that no skyscrapers before or sense ever collapsed due to fir. And yeah I know no others were hit by airliners but the buildings survived that.

A little though experiment about the collapse eliminates wasting time on fires and fuel.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories, then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50, and the next 65 and then 80 and then 95. So all of the way down the building had to get stronger and heavier. That is true of all skyscrapers. So this presents a problem just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. How could a smaller lighter mass accelerate stronger and heavier masses and destroy the supports which must have held them while doing the destruction in less than triple the free fall time of 9.2 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

So a 60 foot gap is bigger than airliner impact and fires can account for so how is the collapse explained? But then everyone does not demand data on the towers and Grumpy doesn't explain his confessed rotation of the top of the south tower. LOL

psik

 

[Rhaedas]

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

Source? He's wrong.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

 

[GeoffP]

The north tower came down in less than two hours. So we should have data on how much steel was in the area to have an idea how much energy was required to get the steel hot enough. Especially considering that no skyscrapers before or sense ever collapsed due to fir. And yeah I know no others were hit by airliners but the buildings survived that.

A little though experiment about the collapse eliminates wasting time on fires and fuel.

Because you found this line of inquiry not to your taste?

The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50

Static load, not moving load. Where's your statistics on the strength of the supports?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Because you found this line of inquiry not to your taste?

Yeah, because there are two factors involved and believers consistently exaggerate one and ignore the other.

Like someone talking about hundreds of tons of fuel when the total weight of the plane with the fuel was less than 200 tons. People constantly saying "fully fueled" when the planes were only at 40% of fuel capacity. And then the buildings collapse after less than two hours of fire supposedly because of the fire when no one wants accurate data on the amount of steel in the area.

Calculations have been done on the energy required in relation to the amount of steel but collapse believer don't notice that either.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

Or are you saying that the plane impact and fire could do more damage than eliminating 5 stories of the building?

The subject is actually boring and I get banned if I actually say how stupid I think it is. The NIST did do paint deformation tests and microscopic steel examinations to estimate temperatures and reported it in NCSTAR1. They don't have data to support high enough temperatures.

So I will grant collapse initiation to not waste time on the idiotic subject. How do 15 stories destroy 90 in less than 27 seconds? That is even more obviously ridiculous. But how does it not get settled in ten years? Oh yeah, we can't even get accurate data on the concrete. Believers don't need data. Grumpy says the concrete was in the basements. But we know the dimensions of the basements. AT 208 * 208 * 60 feet the basements of both buildings could not hold half of 425,000 cubic yards even if they were solid concrete which we know they were not. So why do sources from before 9/11 give that specification for the concrete in the towers and the NIST agrees with the steel spec, so why would the concrete be wrong? And the the NIST does not supply the concrete spec.

That by itself is peculiar after 11 YEARS.

psik

 

[spidergoat]

You would think it would be easier to make your case if it were true. But no, you have to wade through all kinds of technical research all of which is questionable at best.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You would think it would be easier to make your case if it were true. But no, you have to wade through all kinds of technical research all of which is questionable at best.

You think the specific heat of steel is questionable?

The author of the paper admitted that he was estimating the amount of steel on a level. But doesn't that mean any research that is not questionable should get the correct amount of steel? So the point is why don't we have official sources telling us the amount of steel on every level after 11 years?

That is what is questionable.

There are are least three different reasons for having that data. Analysing the plane impact, analysing the fire, and analysing the collapse. But we have 11 years of experts mostly not talking about it. When has Richard Gage ever discussed it?

So no matter what the truth is, 9/11 is a scientific farce.

psik

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

So no matter what the truth is, 9/11 is a scientific farce.

IE "No matter what you say, I won't let facts get in the way of what I want to believe."

Once again, can a bar of steel 10 feet long be heated on one end to a red glow in a fire while you hold the other end in your bare hands?(IE will the steel reach a red glow first or will you let go of the end because it gets too hot before the end gets glowing)

Second question. By emphasizing ALL of the steel on one floor are you implying that ALL of it must be heated before ANY of it can be heated to a red glow?

Third question. What is the significance of the red glow?(hint: blacksmith).

And I have shown everyone here why the top of Tower 2 rotated, the perimeter frame folded in one direction as it failed, the top, rotating around it's center of gravity, went the other. That you are incapable of understanding what they have no trouble doing is unfortunate, but not surprising given the total lack of knowledge or understanding of any physics you continue to display.

Oh, one more question. Do you think it makes a big difference in question number one what the total mass of the steel rods in the shop is? Can one rod be heated to a red glow on one end even if only two feet of that rod is pushed out while 8 feet are laying on a whole pile of rods(assume the "whole pile" is an infinite amount of steel if you like)?

Answer these questions honestly(if even only to yourself)and you will see what a pile you have been spewing here.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

You think the specific heat of steel is questionable?

The author of the paper admitted that he was estimating the amount of steel on a level. But doesn't that mean any research that is not questionable should get the correct amount of steel? So the point is why don't we have official sources telling us the amount of steel on every level after 11 years?

That is what is questionable.

There are are least three different reasons for having that data. Analysing the plane impact, analysing the fire, and analysing the collapse. But we have 11 years of experts mostly not talking about it. When has Richard Gage ever discussed it?

So no matter what the truth is, 9/11 is a scientific farce.

psik

Scientifically, it's impossible to reproduce the exact conditions of the event. Unless there is some extraordinary evidence, the most scientifically reasonable explanation is the most obvious one.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Scientifically, it's impossible to reproduce the exact conditions of the event. Unless there is some extraordinary evidence, the most scientifically reasonable explanation is the most obvious one.

And how do you figure out what is "scientifically reasonable" if you don't even know the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers and the 10,000 page report that is supposedly scientific does not even specify the total amount of concrete for the towers though they use the word more than 3,000 times. But they specify the total for the steel but not the distribution though they admit in three places that the information is necessary to analyse the plane impact.

It sounds to me like you can just come up with excuses for what you prefer to believe. All skyscrapers have to hold themselves up regardless of what destroyed the twin towers so why doesn't EVERYBODY want mass distributions data? Since there are 200 buildings around the world over 750 feet tall this should not be s scientifically difficult problem.

psik

 

[spidergoat]

It's scientifically impossible to prove that the airplanes were not the root cause of the tower's collapse.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It's scientifically impossible to prove that the airplanes were not the root cause of the tower's collapse.

Are you saying it is scientifically possible to prove that they were the cause?

I already described the thought experiment with 5 levels missing. Are you saying we do not know that skyscrapers must hold themselves up? Are you saying that having correct data on steel and concrete distributions is

UNSCIENTIFIC?

psik