9/11 was an inside job

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, you built a model... out of PAPER. How did you simulate MELTING METAL using PAPER?

The melting metal would only be part of the Collapse INITIATION. It would not explain how the lower 90 levels of the north tower could be destroyed by the falling upper portion.

I deliberately dropped 4 washers onto the remaining 29 so I do not have to explain initiation. YOU must explain progressive collapse and why you don't want accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

psik

 

[leopold]

I agree that psikey's model is meant to demonstrate that it is not possible for the top portion of his model to provide all the forces required to crush the bottom portion straight down.

correct.
that's assuming all of the lower supports are not compromised.
but that isn't the case.
as the building started to collapse, these butt joints (both core and perimeter) separated in advance of the collapse and removed some or even most of the lower supports.
the only role the top portion played is in starting the collapse.

Imagine if the top portion of WTC 1 or 2 magically disappeared before the collapse. Are you saying that the bottom portion would have failed anyway?

probably not.

 

[leopold]

But still, does it make any sense that the world's tallest buildings (at one time) would be designed to be anything less than stable?

they were stable.
1 and 2 would have stood there for a very, very, long time uncompromised.

you must remember that 1 &2 was not built like your house or the empire state building.
these buildings had 3 elements that relied on each other to keep those buildings standing.
the core, floors, and perimeter ALL played a role.
remove enough of any one of them and those buildings would fall to the ground.

these butt joints are the solution to the "CD mystery".

 

[Kittamaru]

The melting metal would only be part of the Collapse INITIATION. It would not explain how the lower 90 levels of the north tower could be destroyed by the falling upper portion.

I deliberately dropped 4 washers onto the remaining 29 so I do not have to explain initiation. YOU must explain progressive collapse and why you don't want accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

psik

What is there to explain? You dropped several hundred thousand tons of material onto a structure designed to hold only several thousand tons... the structure FAILED. Seems like a pretty elementary (and obvious) conclusion...

 

[leopold]

But I can make my supports as weak as possible relative to the static load but we KNOW that is not how skyscrapers are constructed.

butt joints are one of the weakest joints in engineering psiky.
you already know the perimeter was full of these things.
i've given you video proof of butt joints in the core.
we both know these joints were staggered.
this effectively allowed the building to destroy itself once it was sufficiently compromised.

So if my "weak as possible" model will not collapse then why is everyone supposed to believe real skyscrapers could without additional help?
psik

ok.
how does your model show separated core/perimeter joints in advance of the collapse?
that is what i'm saying.
as the collapse progressed, it loosened the core/perimeter in advance of the collapse.

 

[leopold]

psiky,
the core of your model does not accurately portray reality.
the core of the towers can be likened to a series of pencils end to end, i forget how many there were in the core.
now, stagger the joints.
on top of that, the loosened core also affects the perimeter.
how does your model portray that?
in fact, your model doesn't depict ANY interaction between the floors, core, and perimeter.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Every building in the world is; you can always overstress (or damage) them until they collapse. Examples are numerous. Buildings are designed to be as cheap as possible, with an adequate design margin to deal with most conceivable events (earthquake, fire, aircraft collision, wind, lightning etc.)

Could you provide an example of a building totally collapsing into its own footprint, (excluding controlled demolition)? I honestly have never seen such a thing other than WTC1, 2, and 7. Since there are numerous examples, please choose one that is as similar as possible to WTC 1 and 2. Thanks.

Also, I don't think it helps your side that your "metastable" video model withstood multiple impacts before collapsing.

Not sure which "side" you think I am on, so not sure what you mean.

The model in your video link had no connections other than friction, and yet it did not collapse after the first impact. It required multiple impacts to finally get it to collapse. Compare that with WTC1, which had connections, yet did not require multiple impacts to collapse. Maybe the impact just happened to be in the right place to cause a collapse, but the impact to WTC2 was in a different place, and at a different angle, and yet that one collapsed as well. I don't know what "side' you are on, but I think you are saying that the behavior of the buildings can be explained by the model in your video link, and I am just pointing out some differences.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Imagine if the top portion of WTC 1 or 2 magically disappeared before the collapse. Are you saying that the bottom portion would have failed anyway?

probably not.

Well that sounds like it is the top portion which provides the forces that collapse the bottom portion. What am I missing here?

you must remember that 1 &2 was not built like your house or the empire state building.
these buildings had 3 elements that relied on each other to keep those buildings standing.
the core, floors, and perimeter ALL played a role.
remove enough of any one of them and those buildings would fall to the ground.

That is just baffling to me. My understanding is that the floors were supported by the core and perimeter. If so, then the weight of each floor pulls the core outward, and pulls the perimeter inward. To me, that means the core and perimeter would have to be strong enough to stand on their own, and also support the pulling of the floors. I don't understand how the core and perimeter could rely on the floor for any kind of support, even laterally. I cannot imagine a model on any scale in which a core and a perimeter are too weak to stand on their own, yet somehow adding the floors makes them stand.

 

[billvon]

Could you provide an example of a building totally collapsing into its own footprint, (excluding controlled demolition)?

Sure, here's one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12317450
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5yt2am_Vyd8

(BTW the WTC did not "totally collapse into its own footprint" - nor did the Kapla tower in the video. Although they both collapse in a pretty small area compared to their height.)

The model in your video link had no connections other than friction

Correct. In other words, quite weak connections.

It required multiple impacts to finally get it to collapse. Compare that with WTC1, which had connections, yet did not require multiple impacts to collapse.

Agreed. It is also clear that a more direct impact (say, someone with better aim) could have brought the tower down with a single impact.

I don't know what "side' you are on, but I think you are saying that the behavior of the buildings can be explained by the model in your video link, and I am just pointing out some differences.

Not at all. For example, there was no fire, and the terrorists had much better aim than the students. It is simply an example of a previously stable building (albeit with weak connections) collapsing in a similar manner due to damage near its midpoint. Notable similarities include the upper structure falling as a unit, the lower structure providing very little resistance, the upper structure rotating as it falls, and a final collapse within a relatively small area (i.e. it doesn't just "tip over.") However, given those similarities, there are a great many differences.

 

[leopold]

Could you provide an example of a building totally collapsing into its own footprint, (excluding controlled demolition)? I honestly have never seen such a thing other than WTC1, 2, and 7. Since there are numerous examples, please choose one that is as similar as possible to WTC 1 and 2. Thanks.

i wondered the same thing.
i ran across an article in an engineering journal that stated the towers had no choice but to fall straight down.
the reason being they were 95% air.
take the outside measurements of the building.
find the volume.
5% of that was construction material.

 

[leopold]

Well that sounds like it is the top portion which provides the forces that collapse the bottom portion. What am I missing here?

the same thing psiky is.
namely the interaction of these 3 elements.
you are assuming ALL of the "force" came from above.
shifting core columns and twisting perimeter columns provided some of that force in advance of the collapse.
this is the key to understanding how those buildings failed the way they did.

That is just baffling to me. My understanding is that the floors were supported by the core and perimeter.

correct.

If so, then the weight of each floor pulls the core outward, and pulls the perimeter inward.

the floors didn't "pull" anything anywhere.
they were suspended between the perimeter and core.
they offered no structural support except for the live loads they carried.
they kept the building from twisting.

I don't understand how the core and perimeter could rely on the floor for any kind of support, even laterally.

then you haven't read and understood the construction details of 1 & 2.

I cannot imagine a model on any scale in which a core and a perimeter are too weak to stand on their own, yet somehow adding the floors makes them stand.

the only thing i can tell you is to read about the construction details.
a good place to start would be the congressional 911 report.

 

[Neddy Bate]

the floors didn't "pull" anything anywhere.
they were suspended between the perimeter and core.
they offered no structural support except for the live loads they carried.
they kept the building from twisting.

It seems to me that the floors can only distribute building-twisting-forces to the perimeter and the core, thus completing the circular reasoning. However, I will just have to accept that buildings have a "house of cards" nature.

 

[leopold]

However, I will just have to accept that buildings have a "house of cards" nature.

you don't have to "accept" it.
the 911 report deals with the subject in laymans terms.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What is there to explain? You dropped several hundred thousand tons of material onto a structure designed to hold only several thousand tons... the structure FAILED. Seems like a pretty elementary (and obvious) conclusion...

So you make up numbers as you want.

Most sources say each tower including the basements was either 400,000 or 500,000 tons.

The NIST says there was a total of 200,000 tons of steel in both towers. Curiously they never specify a total for the concrete.

A number of sources from before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That comes to somewhat more than 300,000 tons per tower.

So what would have been in the lower 90 stories plus the basements of the north tower versus what was above the impact zone?

psik

 

[origin]

So you make up numbers as you want.

Most sources say each tower including the basements was either 400,000 or 500,000 tons.

The NIST says there was a total of 200,000 tons of steel in both towers. Curiously they never specify a total for the concrete.

A number of sources from before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That comes to somewhat more than 300,000 tons per tower.

So what would have been in the lower 90 stories plus the basements of the north tower versus what was above the impact zone?

psik

I think you are on the verge of admitting that there was no conspiracy. All the evidence is starting to convince you, isn't it?

 

[Kittamaru]

So you make up numbers as you want.

Most sources say each tower including the basements was either 400,000 or 500,000 tons.

The NIST says there was a total of 200,000 tons of steel in both towers. Curiously they never specify a total for the concrete.

A number of sources from before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That comes to somewhat more than 300,000 tons per tower.

So what would have been in the lower 90 stories plus the basements of the north tower versus what was above the impact zone?

psik

Not really sure how I was making up numbers... it's pretty obvious that my point was to the effect of "we took a floor designed to hold X amount of weight, and dropped some value significantly GREATER than X upon it, and oh look, it collapsed".... but I guess that was too complicated for you to figure out on your own...

 

[psikeyhackr]

Not really sure how I was making up numbers... it's pretty obvious that my point was to the effect of "we took a floor designed to hold X amount of weight, and dropped some value significantly GREATER than X upon it, and oh look, it collapsed".... but I guess that was too complicated for you to figure out on your own...

You said:

What is there to explain? You dropped several hundred thousand tons of material onto a structure designed to hold only several thousand tons... the structure FAILED. Seems like a pretty elementary (and obvious) conclusion...

Maybe you don't understand what the word SEVERAL means.

It wouldn't surprise me. Google the definition.

A single floor assembly outside of the core was about 750 tons. So 6 floor assemblies, not even counting the core and the perimeter, would qualify as more than SEVERAL thousand tons.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think you are on the verge of admitting that there was no conspiracy. All the evidence is starting to convince you, isn't it?

You appear to have a problem with reading comprehension but I don't really give a damn about any conspiracies. It is just a physics problem to me.

But I do not think the portion of the north tower above the impact zone could fall and destroy the portion of the tower below the impact zone in less than 26 seconds. So you can relate that to conspiracies in any way you wish.

psik

 

[Kittamaru]

You said:


Maybe you don't understand what the word SEVERAL means.

It wouldn't surprise me. Google the definition.

A single floor assembly outside of the core was about 750 tons. So 6 floor assemblies, not even counting the core and the perimeter, would qualify as more than SEVERAL thousand tons.

psik

So sue me? The point is still valid - what fell on the assembly is FAR more weight and mass than it was designed for... you are being deliberately OBTUSE because you know your "argument", and I use the term loosely, hasn't got a leg to stand on!

 

[psikeyhackr]

So sue me? The point is still valid - what fell on the assembly is FAR more weight and mass than it was designed for... you are being deliberately OBTUSE because you know your "argument", and I use the term loosely, hasn't got a leg to stand on!

So you can call me OBTUSE because you don't even know the actual masses involved in the problem.

I am merely amused by your religious beliefs.

psik