World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

[billvon]

Do you have evidence that the fire in the north tower did any damage below the 85th level below the collapse?

?? As far as I know it did very little. Why?

About half-a-dozen people in the south tower got out from above the impact zone and they said the south tower was in normal condition below the 75th floor.

Probably true.

I presume that you are talking about gravity, but that also means that the energy required to destroy the supports designed to hold the static loads against gravity must also be taken into consideration. The kinetic energy of the falling mass is the only source and the mass would be slowed down in the process of bending steel and cracking concrete.

Exactly. That's why it took 25 seconds and not 9 seconds.

They came down too fast.

They were slowed down by over a factor of 2.

Children born in 2001 will be starting college this September. Curious that no engineering school has provided a good simulation of the north tower collapse by now.

So it should be even easier for you to do it. Get cracking, and stop yer bitchin until you get it done!

 

[psikeyhackr]

So it should be even easier for you to do it. Get cracking, and stop yer bitchin until you get it done!

And we can find how the 100,000 tons of steel was distributed in each tower where?

Curious how this "scientific" site manages not to ask obvious questions.

Along with the location of the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower which the NIST admits tilted at 20-25 degrees.

 

[DaveC426913]

They came down too fast. I am not interested in speculating about external forces because that leads into conspiracy debate crap.

This seems contradictory.
Are you suggesting it was a bona fide disaster, as reported, or are you suggesting it was rigged?


How fast is too fast? What other 110 story towers that suffered catastrophic collapse are you comparing them to?

 

[billvon]

And we can find how the 100,000 tons of steel was distributed in each tower where?

In the plans which I am sure you can get. After all, you claimed that any engineering school could do it. Get to it! What are you waiting for?

Curious how this "scientific" site manages not to ask obvious questions.

Interesting how you are refusing to do the work to answer your own questions. Looks like you are afraid to learn what the results will be.

Along with the location of the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower which the NIST admits tilted at 20-25 degrees.

Yep. So what?

 

[psikeyhackr]

This seems contradictory.
Are you suggesting it was a bona fide disaster, as reported, or are you suggesting it was rigged?

How fast is too fast? What other 110 story towers that suffered catastrophic collapse are you comparing them to?

My opinion is that the entire building should not have collapsed. The falling portion would have to accelerate the stationary mass and destroy the supports for that mass. That would take energy and the only available energy would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So why shouldn't modeling it be standard procedure at engineering schools.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a regular.

50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall have been constructed since 2001. The steel distribution of skyscrapers should not be difficult for the schools these days compared to bridge aerodynamics. Try finding that distribution data on any skyscraper.

 

[James R]

My opinion is that the entire building should not have collapsed. The falling portion would have to accelerate the stationary mass and destroy the supports for that mass. That would take energy and the only available energy would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So why shouldn't modeling it be standard procedure at engineering schools.

Whether or not it is standard procedure at engineering schools is irrelevant.

Are you claiming that no engineers have modelled the collapse? Because if that's the case then you would be wrong.

 

[sideshowbob]

I don't believe that airliner impacts and fire could have destroyed the buildings and made them come down that fast even if they were "fully fueled".

I'm not interested in your beliefs. I want to see your calculations.

But no, psikeyhackr is just "intellectually dishonest" whatever the hell that means.

See above. It's intellectually dishonest to form a conclusion before the calculations are made or the simulation is done.

 

[billvon]

My opinion is that the entire building should not have collapsed.

That's great. Everyone has opinions. Some people have opinions that the Earth is flat and that vaccines cause autism, too.

The falling portion would have to accelerate the stationary mass and destroy the supports for that mass. That would take energy and the only available energy would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass.

Correct. And resisting that energy (i.e. a falling dynamic load) is something that the building was never designed for,

50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall have been constructed since 2001. The steel distribution of skyscrapers should not be difficult for the schools these days compared to bridge aerodynamics. Try finding that distribution data on any skyscraper.

This is the third time you have complained that no one has done the work for you. Do the work or stop complaining about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

My opinion is that the entire building should not have collapsed. The falling portion would have to accelerate the stationary mass and destroy the supports for that mass. That would take energy and the only available energy would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass.

I think I'm seeing a reason why you're struggling with this; I don't think you have the facts quite right.

The floors pancaked. They didn't destroy the vertical supporting structures; each floor was sheared away from the supporting structures, as they fell, leaving the supports standing with nothing left to support.

Seems like a weakness right? How efficiently the whole building came down so fast? Because it was never meant to deal with this kind of damage.

The amount and type of damage that the upper floors received was simply inconceivable.

Prior to 9/11, there simply was no way that a section of a dozen floors or so could collapse on top of each other, and - along with the undamaged floors above them - form a huge vertical battering ram, that built up both speed and mass as it fell, taking out every floor below it, one by one in quick succession.

There is - quite simply - no precedent.


And that, by the way, is the fuel for so many skeptics. They had literally never seen any such destructive attack before. So they assumed "something" had to bring it down.

In fact, it's simply that the buildings were never meant to withstand such an attack.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'm not interested in your beliefs. I want to see your calculations.

See above. It's intellectually dishonest to form a conclusion before the calculations are made or the simulation is done.

I did not say I had a belief. I said I DO NOT BELIEVE. Now YOU are being intellectually dishonest with semantic games.

Calculations based on what data? I have already stated that we do not have the distribution of mass data on the buildings. That is one of the funny things about this "scientific" site. It is OK for people to BELIEVE aircraft impacts and fire could destroy the buildings without data on said buildings but if I doubt something and want a scientific analysis then I get bombarded with pseudo-intellectual trash.

The NIST reports the "collapse" went from 11 to 25 seconds.

10. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building's collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

If you watch the videos you can see most of the building come down in less than 15 seconds. What remains is referred to as the Spire which is the remains of the core which takes another 10 seconds. So most of the mass is down in less than 15.

Since I had no mass distribution data I wrote a Python program which did calculations on the collisions of 109 floating masses.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=81888

That old version uses 1/100th of a second intervals. I have one somewhere that uses 1/1000th of a second. Using nothing but the Conservation of Momentum 109 masses hitting one after another takes 12 seconds. But a real collapsing building would have to destroy its supports which would require energy which would have to slow things down.

So how is it you BELIEVERS don't need data and calculations to support your side?

 

[James R]

psikeyhackr,

Numerous detailed analyses have been done by many experts. Why do you want the people here to start from scratch? Why don't you consult the expert reports?

 

[sideshowbob]

Calculations based on what data?

You drew a conclusion. Based on what data?

Use that data.

 

[billvon]

If you watch the videos you can see most of the building come down in less than 15 seconds. What remains is referred to as the Spire which is the remains of the core which takes another 10 seconds. So most of the mass is down in less than 15.

Since I had no mass distribution data I wrote a Python program which did calculations on the collisions of 109 floating masses.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=81888

That old version uses 1/100th of a second intervals. I have one somewhere that uses 1/1000th of a second. Using nothing but the Conservation of Momentum 109 masses hitting one after another takes 12 seconds. But a real collapsing building would have to destroy its supports which would require energy which would have to slow things down.

So in other words your simple simulations have confirmed the official story. Congratulations! You have done a little research and verified that what we observed is indeed likely.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So in other words your simple simulations have confirmed the official story. Congratulations! You have done a little research and verified that what we observed is indeed likely.

How you can come to that conclusion I have no idea. My simulations do not take into account the energy required to destroy the supports that held up all of that mass for 25 years. But then no official account even tells us the distribution of mass. So anyone that does not believe in "magic" is stupid, crazy and/or intellectually dishonest.

 

[DaveC426913]

My simulations do not take into account the energy required to destroy the supports that held up all of that mass for 25 years.

And well they shouldn't, since the supports were not destroyed.

Here's some still standing, with no floors attached to them:

 

[psikeyhackr]

You drew a conclusion. Based on what data?

Use that data.

Doubting something is drawing a conclusion?

The bottom stories of a 1300 foot skyscraper must support more weight than the upper stories of a 1300 foot skyscrapers. When it is commonly admitted that the building weighted 400,000 to 500,000 tons. But then I have never seen anyone specify the weight of steel and concrete below ground level. Is that what you call data?

 

[DaveC426913]

I've got a couple of boxes of Christmas ornaments stacked in my basement. Each one has 3 or 4 layers - or "floors" - for ornaments. They'll stand up forever - even if I put somethin large and heavy on top - because their vertical walls are designed to withstand vertical weight - as long as the whole structure is intact.

But if I set an small anvil on top of the stack, the anvil will go straight down through the layers, pancaking them all, one by one - without ever touching the walls of the box.

The cardboard box walls do not get crushed from the top down. Instead, when the layers compact, the falling debris pushes outwards on the walls - in the direction they are weakest.

A box - and a building - is designed to withstand a lot of compression from above, but it is not designed to withstand lateral forces very well. The walls of the box easily just fold.


I think it's high time you admit you don't know enough about structural engineering to doubt the experts.

 

[billvon]

How you can come to that conclusion I have no idea. My simulations do not take into account the energy required to destroy the supports that held up all of that mass for 25 years.

Correct. In your simplified simulation it took ~12 seconds for the collapse. Since you did not include the energy required to destroy the supports, it would have had to take longer than that. It did take longer than that. Theory confirmed. Congratulations.

 

[sideshowbob]

Doubting something is drawing a conclusion?

In Message #312 you said, 'I don't believe that airliner impacts and fire could have destroyed the buildings and made them come down that fast even if they were "fully fueled".' That looks like conclusion to me.

 

[Beaconator]

Curious how this "scientific" site manages not to ask obvious questions.

We kinda let someone ask obvious questions and lead them to obvious solutions...