The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Kat Dorman]

If you Google "TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE" you get about 4990 matches, and I think all of them are you.

[atrasicarius]

The towers were DESTROYED. Did they collapse?

Would you care to be a bit more specific? Where were the explosives placed, how much were there, etc etc.

[atrasicarius]

So what is stopping you from making a model that can completely collapse if you think a self supporting structure is capable of that? I have never even seen the weight of a floor assembly specified.

Model for collapse: star with mass of around 1.4 solar masses.
Method of collapse: gravitational collapse during supernova event.
Result: much reduced in size.

I'm sorry I haven't made this model myself, but I don't see any reason why I can't use a model already at hand.

Well played.

[psikeyhackr]

So what is stopping you from making a model that can completely collapse if you think a self supporting structure is capable of that? I have never even seen the weight of a floor assembly specified.

Model for collapse: star with mass of around 1.4 solar masses.
Method of collapse: gravitational collapse during supernova event.
Result: much reduced in size.

I'm sorry I haven't made this model myself, but I don't see any reason why I can't use a model already at hand.

Well played.

Good, you can calculate the mass relative to the WTC then.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

The towers were DESTROYED. Did they collapse?

Would you care to be a bit more specific? Where were the explosives placed, how much were there, etc etc.

I didn't say anything about exp----ves. I am not saying what did it I am talking about what could not have done it.

econ41 doesn't like the word CRUSHED.

The word DESTROYED is applicable no matter how it was done.

But the official story is that the portion of the tower above the impact zone fell downward. Some say this was the result of fire and some say it was the combination of fire and structural damage due to the airliner impact.

But that would mean that in the case of the north tower 14 stories (destroyed, crushed, caused to disintegrate) more than 90 stories even though they were mostly intact. Now to come down in less than 18 seconds the falling mass would have to accelerate at more than 50% of gravitational acceleration. Now since a skyscraper must get stronger all of the way down therefore there must be more steel and therefore increased mass how could this acceleration occur when energy had to have been expended to bend, break, dislocate, mutilate the supporting mass. Why didn't the mass slow down and stop leaving more then 40 stories standing if it did not just fall down the side?

We must all agree that the towers were destroyed. The question is what destroyed them. It was a collapse only if the top portion could destroy the rest with no other energy sources involved. But why can't that be analyzed with correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? So why doesn't EVERYBODY want to know it?

If it was possible shouldn't it be EASY to build a self supporting model that can completely collapse?

How is it that my WEAK model does not even come close to complete collapse with TWO DROPS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Some people want to claim it is TOO STRONG. So let's see anyone make it weaker and still support its own weight under STATIC LOAD. Collapse has a relatively specific meaning and I think many people will believe it was a collapse just because they hear that word all of the time even if that is not what happened. Destroyed covers every possibility.

psik

[econ41]

...econ41 doesn't like the word CRUSHED...

That is the second time you have used my name in relation to a word definition. In both cases you know the reasons.

...But the official story is that the portion of the tower above the impact zone fell downward....

that much happens to be true psikey.

...Some say this was the result of fire and some say it was the combination of fire and structural damage due to the airliner impact....

...and don't forget that some claim it had human assistance in some form.

...But that would mean that in the case of the north tower 14 stories (destroyed, crushed, caused to disintegrate) more than 90 stories even though they were mostly intact. Now to come down in less than 18 seconds the falling mass would have to accelerate at more than 50% of gravitational acceleration....

All true psikey - can you keep it up?

... Now since a skyscraper must get stronger all of the way down therefore there must be more steel and therefore increased mass how could this acceleration occur when energy had to have been expended to bend, break, dislocate, mutilate the supporting mass....

Damn. You blew it. No point me repeating why your statement is ridiculous. You have been told umpteen times how the collapse actually occurred.

...Why didn't the mass slow down and stop leaving more then 40 stories standing if it did not just fall down the side?..

Two silly claims there. And once again you know the answers so no point repeating them.

...We must all agree that the towers were destroyed. The question is what destroyed them....

Wow. Such insight!!

... It was a collapse only if the top portion could destroy the rest with no other energy sources involved....

well apart from your redefining of the English language --- yes. True. So what?

...But why can't that be analyzed with correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?

it has been analysed with all relevant data input. Your problem remains your failure to come to grips with the meaning and application of 'relevant'.

...So why doesn't EVERYBODY want to know it?...

Because most people coming into WTC 9/11 discussions have the intelligence to understand the explanations they are given.

Then more psikey red herrings:

...If it was possible shouldn't it be EASY to build a self supporting model that can completely collapse?

How is it that my WEAK model does not even come close to complete collapse with TWO DROPS?

Some people want to claim it is TOO STRONG. So let's see anyone make it weaker and still support its own weight under STATIC LOAD. Collapse has a relatively specific meaning and I think many people will believe it was a collapse just because they hear that word all of the time even if that is not what happened. Destroyed covers every possibility....

[Made of Stars]

OMG, this thread's still going?

It was a collapse only if the top portion could destroy the rest with no other energy sources involved...

This is like creationists claiming that evolution couldn't be true, cos the earth would need an external source of energy to keep things going. They come that close to discovering "the sun", but still fail.

Here's a linky for you psikeyhackr. It should help.

[psikeyhackr]

Damn. You blew it. No point me repeating why your statement is ridiculous. You have been told umpteen times how the collapse actually occurred.

So you have talked bullshit umpteen times.

What is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?

Talk is CHEAP! There are no words in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

The realities of physics are incapable of giving a damn about words or mathematics.

psik

[Weaver]

The realities of physics are incapable of giving a damn about words or mathematics.

psik

Oh, that deserves a Dunsapy.

Physics is mathematics.

Off to call Hack ...

[Xaihe]

So what is stopping you from making a model that can completely collapse if you think a self supporting structure is capable of that? I have never even seen the weight of a floor assembly specified.

Model for collapse: star with mass of around 1.4 solar masses.
Method of collapse: gravitational collapse during supernova event.
Result: much reduced in size.

I'm sorry I haven't made this model myself, but I don't see any reason why I can't use a model already at hand.

I'm so glad you think that demonstrates your intelligence.

Would you be so kind as to compute how many times greater 1.4 solar masses is than the mass of WTC 1?

Of course I would not spend my time calculating something that STUPID.

psik

My model has about 1022 times higher mass than a WTC tower. But your model has about 10-7 times the mass of a WTC tower. Why don't you build a model with a mass within the same order of magnitude of the towers? I.e. a mass of around 108 kg. I'll be nice and accept a mass anywhere between 107 and 109 kg. If you can't do that (or won't), then you have no right to dismiss my model for the silly reason that it's has too much mass.

[Xaihe]

We must all agree that the towers were destroyed. The question is what destroyed them. It was a collapse only if the top portion could destroy the rest with no other energy sources involved. But why can't that be analyzed with correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? So why doesn't EVERYBODY want to know it?

If it was possible shouldn't it be EASY to build a self supporting model that can completely collapse?

How is it that my WEAK model does not even come close to complete collapse with TWO DROPS?

What my neutron star model should be telling you is that gravity has very different effects at different scales of magnitude. It's highly unlikely you'll ever observe a 1 gram paper tissue collapsing into a black hole. Does that mean that black holes must be created via other means than gravity? It's difficult to model a gravitational collapse with a small scale model, like you're asking other people to make. However, you don't need to know advanced physics to see that it still applies when you make small scale models of relatively small objects such as the WTC towers. To make a model that accurately represents gravitational collapse of the towers is, for that reason, very difficult. No one will attempt to meet your challenge, because you've already shown that you won't accept certain models, while refusing to give all your requirements.

[atrasicarius]

Good, you can calculate the mass relative to the WTC then.

psik

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/joke

The towers were DESTROYED. Did they collapse?

Would you care to be a bit more specific? Where were the explosives placed, how much were there, etc etc.

I didn't say anything about exp----ves. I am not saying what did it I am talking about what could not have done it.

econ41 doesn't like the word CRUSHED.

The word DESTROYED is applicable no matter how it was done.

But the official story is that the portion of the tower above the impact zone fell downward. Some say this was the result of fire and some say it was the combination of fire and structural damage due to the airliner impact.

But that would mean that in the case of the north tower 14 stories (destroyed, crushed, caused to disintegrate) more than 90 stories even though they were mostly intact. Now to come down in less than 18 seconds the falling mass would have to accelerate at more than 50% of gravitational acceleration. Now since a skyscraper must get stronger all of the way down therefore there must be more steel and therefore increased mass how could this acceleration occur when energy had to have been expended to bend, break, dislocate, mutilate the supporting mass. Why didn't the mass slow down and stop leaving more then 40 stories standing if it did not just fall down the side?

We must all agree that the towers were destroyed. The question is what destroyed them. It was a collapse only if the top portion could destroy the rest with no other energy sources involved. But why can't that be analyzed with correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? So why doesn't EVERYBODY want to know it?

If it was possible shouldn't it be EASY to build a self supporting model that can completely collapse?

How is it that my WEAK model does not even come close to complete collapse with TWO DROPS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Some people want to claim it is TOO STRONG. So let's see anyone make it weaker and still support its own weight under STATIC LOAD. Collapse has a relatively specific meaning and I think many people will believe it was a collapse just because they hear that word all of the time even if that is not what happened. Destroyed covers every possibility.

psik

Ok, first this:
"Now since a skyscraper must get stronger all of the way down therefore there must be more steel and therefore increased mass how could this acceleration occur when energy had to have been expended to bend, break, dislocate, mutilate the supporting mass. Why didn't the mass slow down and stop leaving more then 40 stories standing if it did not just fall down the side?"

Remember the part about how there was energy equivalent to 94 tons of TNT released as the buildings collapsed in addition to the acceleration? Honestly, did you type that out just now, or just copy/paste it in from somewhere else? It's kind of hilarious after your last post about how energy doesnt matter.

"I didn't say anything about exp----ves. I am not saying what did it I am talking about what could not have done it."

Well, as you said, the towers obviously collapsed, so something made them collapse. Do you have a theory on that, or do you think it was just an act of god?

[Electric Balalaika]

Oh sweet Jesus, what have I walked into.

[Weaver]

Oh sweet Jesus, what have I walked into.

The Twilight Zone. It's not too late - you can get out without getting involved. Might be best, really - it's pretty apparent that the only holdouts in this discussion are so entrenched that they not only won't accept evidence contrary to their favorite talking points, they won't even bother shifting the goalposts to new talking points. Most of the fun and challenge is gone - all that's left is a never-ending game of Whack-a-Mole using science for a hammer and tired, long debunked bullshit cliches as the rodents,

[byofrcs]

Damn. You blew it. No point me repeating why your statement is ridiculous. You have been told umpteen times how the collapse actually occurred.

So you have talked bullshit umpteen times.

What is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?

Talk is CHEAP! There are no words in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

The realities of physics are incapable of giving a damn about words or mathematics.

psik

You must have missed my post as you haven't replied. Please answer these two questions and then draw the consclusion. It is very simple,

a) do you know the dead weight of each floor ? I don't think it matters if you are a few tons out but you'll find that it is about 4000 tonnes or something. It doesn't actually matter what is above or below, each floor is pretty well built the same on each floor with a few exceptions for maintenance floors.

b) do you know what the maximum load that each floor could carry ? I think its 1300 tonnes or something i.e. each floor can carry up to around 1300 tonnes the load of which was transferred to that very strong core and the outside walls.

OK, given those two figure then is it reasonable to say that if the dead weight of a floor exceeds the load of the floor below (i.e. 4000 >1300) and if they were to meet then there would be an unstoppable chain reaction down the floors ?

OK and then given that all the floors are now settling in a falling multi-thousand tonne pile of rubble that easily exceeds the load capacity of any one floor then is it reasonable that the core and outside supports will eventually just collapse over too due to lack of lateral support like so much un-braced scaffolding ?

The core and outside is not in one long 110 meters of continuous rolled steel but in sections which are bolted and welded together. This is like how scaffolding collapses when it looses its ties to the building. It is just not reasonable to expect that the core will stay standing as a 110 meter high bit of steel but it will collapse too.

[hackenslash]

The realities of physics are incapable of giving a damn about words or mathematics.

psik

Dunsapy duly awarded.

[psikeyhackr]

a) do you know the dead weight of each floor ? I don't think it matters if you are a few tons out but you'll find that it is about 4000 tonnes or something. It doesn't actually matter what is above or below, each floor is pretty well built the same on each floor with a few exceptions for maintenance floors.

What do you mean by FLOOR?

I make a point distinguishing FLOOR and LEVEL. By FLOOR I mean th horizontal components that people walked on. Because of the tube-in-tube structure of the WTC the HUGE floors outside the core are a major item of concern. The weight of the concrete slab should be computable quite accurately. Most of the time the thickness is specified at 4 inches but the pans were corrugated so the thickness varied between 4 and 5 inches. Because I have seen edge on pictures of the pans I use 4.333 inches as the thickness. This gives a weight of 600 tons. I have never seen a total weight for the pans and all of the trusses specified. A curious omission after NINE YEARS. I am estimating between 150 and 200 tons, therefore 800 tons max for the complete floor assemblies. There were 84 identical floor assemblies in each tower.

By LEVEL I mean a 12 foot high horizontal slice through the building including one floor assembly in each slice plus all of the steel in the core, columns and horizontal beams plus the perimeter columns and spandrels. Because the thickness of the walls of the box columns and thickness of H beams changed down the building The weight of the LEVELS changed even though the weight of most FLOORS did not.

Because the WTC towers were such famous landmarks there is lots of documentation saying there were 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in the towers. But there were two types of concrete used, 150 lb/cu ft and 110 lb/cu ft. so the total weight is still uncertain. But the minimum is still more than 300,000 tons per building. Curiously the NCSTAR1 report NEVER specifies a total for the concrete. So my point has always been what were the distributions down the buildings. Doing an average is nonsense. The top lighter portion supposedly fell and destroyed a progressively heavier and stronger portion. While accelerating at more than 0.5 G. This depends on whose collapse times you accept.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Remember the part about how there was energy equivalent to 94 tons of TNT released as the buildings collapsed in addition to the acceleration? Honestly, did you type that out just now, or just copy/paste it in from somewhere else? It's kind of hilarious after your last post about how energy doesnt matter.

A potential Energy calculation is mgh.

That g is gravitational acceleration.

But the mass m can only accelerate through the distance h if that distance is EMPTY SPACE.

The mass cannot accelerate through mass strong enough to support it. Like a book sitting on a desk the NET FORCE is ZERO. It can't fall. So the only energy is the kinetic energy of the falling top portion which has to lose kinetic energy to destroy the supports below so it slows down.

I could compute the supposed potential energy of all of the washers in my model but it would be a meaningless number. The only distance in computing potential energy that matters is the empty space between the mass I intend to drop and the top of the staionary portion. The distance of the stationary washers above the board is irrelevant. The washers must be pushed down from above and the paper loop supports must be crushed in the process causing the falling mass to lose velocity and kinetic energy.

UNTIL IT STOPS leaving most of the structure intact.

So build a model that can collapse COMPLETELY. Real physics is incapable of giving a damn about words or mathematics. Mathematics is in your head just like words. It ain't my fault that you think you are intelligent because you can do mathematics. Make a physical model do what your mathematics says.

psik

[aspire1670]

So build a model that can collapse COMPLETELY. Real physics is incapable of giving a damn about words or mathematics. Mathematics is in your head just like words. It ain't my fault that you think you are intelligent because you can do mathematics. Make a physical model do what your mathematics says.

psik

Hey, Hack, we need another Dunsapy.

[Kat Dorman]

The only distance in computing potential energy that matters is the empty space between the mass I intend to drop and the top of the staionary portion.

What about the distance dropped in crushing supports? Doesn't count because it isn't empty space?



PS: econ41, I know I'm not supposed to talk about anything other than this forum, but I have to say "I told you so" re: tfk.