## The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

I really don't understand this point.

Is the idea of it being less than 20 seconds in all the issue? Because again, I would imagine that this would indicate a greater velocity and, by extension, a greater deal of kinetic energy during the collapse.

Is it that it couldn't have collapsed straight down? Why not, though? Even with every floor weighing less than the floor that preceded it, falling implies velocity, which implies another factor when determining the force exerted on the supporting floor, which then carries through to the lower floors through the conservation of momentum and the overall increased weight due to the increased number of floors collapsing.

I'm not even sure why you were arguing about the different concrete used between the walls and the floors, to be honest? If the floors collapsed first, and then the walls fell in due to there being no floors as a result of their collapse, then what's the problem?
Greg the Grouper

Name: Patrick
Posts: 66

Country: US
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Greg the Grouper wrote:I really don't understand this point.

Is the idea of it being less than 20 seconds in all the issue? Because again, I would imagine that this would indicate a greater velocity and, by extension, a greater deal of kinetic energy during the collapse.

Is it that result of their collapse, then what's the problem?

Ah someone open to intelligent discussion instead of psychological B.S..

Great!

First of all dropping a bowling ball from the top of the North Tower would be a 9.2 sec fall and that is ignoring wind resistance.
So the tower supposedly fell through its own mass with only an additional 11 seconds.
[Many sources say the total was 18 seconds but I will let 2 seconds slide]

The conservation of momentum equation is:

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

Since we have a falling mass hitting a stationary mass v1 is going to be 0.

Since this is an ongoing series of collisions we need to know the mass at each level.

But things get more complicated because this is a self supporting structure. Every level must be strong enough to support all of the weight above. So moving the stationary mass requires enough energy to bend or break the supports. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. If it gives up energy then it slows down. So with slowing down at every sequential impact how could it happen in little more than double freefall time?

But then our experts do not even tell us the distributions of steel and concrete down the structures.

So at least the Twin Towers Affair is a failure of due diligence in an extremely unusual event.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to model the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations that led to its destruction. 20 years and we do not have physical or virtual models accounting for the straight down collapse of a building 1360 ft tall.

Sorry I missed your post on Sep 11
I normally scan up and down looking at people's avatars and ignore certain ones.
Since you didn't post an avatar I must have skipped right by. I looked at your profile to see your previous post.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

psikeyhackr

Posts: 1448

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

1. Every floor will accelerate as it falls due to the force of gravity. I see no reason to think that the loss of speed as each floor collides with the next will result in a substantial difference in velocity as each collision occurs.

2. The floors fell before the walls did. The walls are integral to the structure's framework, and how it supports itself. I see no reason to assume structural integrity when a floor is falling absent the walls that supported it into another floor; on the contrary, it seems asinine at this point to assume that the full load-bearing structure of the tower is even at play, here.

Honestly this strikes me as baseless speculation at this point. If anything need be considered structurally, I imagine it would be (for lack of a better word) the joints that joined the floors to the walls, which would naturally be a weak point of the structure, especially when concerning above floors in free fall.
Greg the Grouper

Name: Patrick
Posts: 66

Country: US
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

We have a problem with the terms
FLOOR versus LEVEL
Because of the unusual design of the Twin Towers there were huge floors between the CORE and the PERIMETER SUPPORTS.

The NIST does not support the "pancake" hypothesis.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Only floors that broke loose could accelerate and you would have to assume that all of the connections broke simultaneously for the floor to remain horizontal and no friction with the core and the perimeter.

How do you account for these ideal conditions. Do you even know how many connections there were around the core and the perimeter?

By LEVEL I mean everything from the surface of one floor to the surface of the next including core and perimeter.

One of us is engaged in baseless speculation when the NIST does not even support the "pancake theory". This whole so called debate depends on do many people not investigating.

You accuse me of baseless assumptions because you want to ignore physical reality. How could all off the connections fail at the same time in a fire for any floor to remain level in a fall?
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

psikeyhackr

Posts: 1448

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Well, to be blunt, I actually don't know a damn thing about all this. Never did pay much attention to this subject in the past.

Anyway, does this document you just gave me not answer your questions concerning time? That the momentum of the collapsing floors was so great that it completely overwhelmed the floor below the impact floors, rendering its effect on the collapsing structure's velocity minimal at best, resulting in the structure collapsing at essentially free fall speed?

Where did you get 18 seconds, anyway? The document you just cited claims that one tower fell in roughly 11 seconds, and the other in roughly 9 seconds.

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).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Is that why you want to know more about the concrete used? To check their math?
Greg the Grouper

Name: Patrick
Posts: 66

Country: US
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

psikeyhackr wrote:
Agi Hammerthief wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:The NIST admits that the top of the South Tower tilted 20 to 25 degrees.

that is a lie: Nowhere in the report is the word „admit“ used in the context of tilting.

ROFL

Are you actually capable of using the English language?

[767619]

Are you capable of using the German language?

No?

Why the fuck not?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.

The_Metatron
Moderator

Name: Jesse
Posts: 21274
Age: 58

Country: United States
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

psikeyhackr wrote:
Agi Hammerthief wrote:
The_Metatron wrote: You've had twenty years to get a formal engineering education.

yaeh, but as he keeps mentioning: NO engineering school investigates his pet issue,
so presumably none of them are worthy of his presence

Yeah 1360 foot skyscrapers collapsing straight down in less than 20 seconds is totally uninteresting.

The conservation of momentum is a delusion.

50 yrs ago MIT students disrupted an SF convention because of poor physics in a science fiction book.
MIT - Ringworld
https://www.theguardian.com/books/books ... -ringworld
But apparently they can accept the straight down collapse of 1360 ft skyscrapers without steel & concrete distribution data.
Great school!

Still. Twenty god damned years. Two decades to learn all there is to show us all what's what, and you have nothing.

You can't even answer direct questions put to you.

The reply that really made me laugh was when you whined about the resale value of cars since the 1950s. Because, that's on topic, isn't it? Cars get too cheap as soon as you buy them. That's why the buildings fell down? What was the connection?

Or, just gibbering?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.

The_Metatron
Moderator

Name: Jesse
Posts: 21274
Age: 58

Country: United States
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Greg the Grouper wrote:Well, to be blunt, I actually don't know a damn thing about all this. Never did pay much attention to this subject in the past.

Anyway, does this document you just gave me not answer your questions concerning time? That the momentum of the collapsing floors was so great that it completely overwhelmed the floor below the impact floors, rendering its effect on the collapsing structure's velocity minimal at best, resulting in the structure collapsing at essentially free fall speed?

Where did you get 18 seconds, anyway? The document you just cited claims that one tower fell in roughly 11 seconds, and the other in roughly 9 seconds.

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).

Is that why you want to know more about the concrete used? To check their math?

That says EXTERIOR PANELS.

Exterior panels could fall away from the building and not have to hit other solid objects to slow them down.
Internal objects could not do that. There is lots of video of the collapses. There is even a seismic recording of the Event. The exact end is shrouded in dust so I am willing to allow a 2 second error.

Still too fast too be accepted without distribution of mass data.

Why should this be difficult for the nation that put men on the Moon half-a-century ago?
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

psikeyhackr

Posts: 1448

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

1. Where were the charges placed and how much?
2. How does it correspond with what is observed of the collapse?
3. Where was the the “command center” for the ignition of the charges?
4. How did the plane crash figure into the planning?

We keep talking about the NIST report. If it’s fiction, it’s not worth talking about.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism

felltoearth

Posts: 14330
Age: 54

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

You do not get the point. Either aircraft impact and fire could cause what we see in the videos or it could not.

If it could then it should not be difficult to prove with accurate data and physics analysis. If it could not then obviously something else did. But that does not mean that I know or even care anymore. I consider the failure of engineering schools to address the issue to be a serious social problem.

Everyone under the age of 26 has been told throughout their education that airliners less than 200 tons could totally destroy skyscrapers over 500,000 tons but how the steel had to be distributed to hold them up isn't an issue to be questioned.

The MIT article is hilarious.

50 yrs ago MIT students disrupted an SF convention because of poor physics in a science fiction book.
MIT - Ringworld
https://www.theguardian.com/books/books ... -ringworld
But apparently they can accept the straight down collapse of 1360 ft skyscrapers without steel & concrete distribution data.
Great school!

If you look you will see that MIT is mentioned dozens of times in the NCSTAR1 report.

The Towers Lost and Beyond

A collection of essays on the WTC by researchers at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Edited by

Eduardo Kausel
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/index.html

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

psikeyhackr

Posts: 1448

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

psikeyhackr wrote:That says EXTERIOR PANELS.

Exterior panels could fall away from the building and not have to hit other solid objects to slow them down.
Internal objects could not do that. There is lots of video of the collapses. There is even a seismic recording of the Event. The exact end is shrouded in dust so I am willing to allow a 2 second error.

So it seems like you just deleted the rest of the exerpt, rather than actually read it? I'll post it again.

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

It went on to describe the fall of the entire structure as being practically free fall.

psikeyhackr wrote:Still too fast too be accepted without distribution of mass data.

Why should this be difficult for the nation that put men on the Moon half-a-century ago?

Okay, so you want to check their math. Right?
Greg the Grouper

Name: Patrick
Posts: 66

Country: US
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

In order to see the remains of the cores, called The Spires, the floors outside the cores and the perimeter columns had to be out of the way. You can find videos on YouTube and evaluate the complicated events for yourself rather than just judging from verbal descriptions.

Watch the Spires and you will see what is meant by dustification which does not make any sense.

If you want to believe 9/11 is simple you have a problem.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

psikeyhackr

Posts: 1448

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Okay, so you want to check their math. Right?

What math?

The NIST never tried to explain the collapse time.

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

psikeyhackr

Posts: 1448

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

psikeyhackr wrote:

Okay, so you want to check their math. Right?

What math?

The NIST never tried to explain the collapse time.

I literally just quoted to you, twice now, a block of text from the source you yourself provided, which was written with the express purpose of explaining the time it took for the towers to collapse.

Is English your second language? Are you having difficulty understanding the written text that I quoted?
Greg the Grouper

Name: Patrick
Posts: 66

Country: US
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Greg the Grouper wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:

Okay, so you want to check their math. Right?

What math?

The NIST never tried to explain the collapse time.

I literally just quoted to you, twice now, a block of text from the source you yourself provided, which was written with the express purpose of explaining the time it took for the towers to collapse.

Is English your second language? Are you having difficulty understanding the written text that I quoted?

Welcome to what we like to call, The Psikeyhackr Experience.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand

BlackBart

Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12423
Age: 59

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

1. Where were the charges placed and how much?

The explosive demolition bullshit is the funniest of them all. I'm no expert, but many in my family are, and I've seen demolitions of tall structures up close. You know what they all had in common? Not falling from the top down.

hackenslash

Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21912
Age: 52

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

BlackBart wrote:Welcome to what we like to call, The Psikeyhackr Experience.

A once in a lifetime treat, to be sure.
Greg the Grouper

Name: Patrick
Posts: 66

Country: US
Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

hackenslash wrote:

1. Where were the charges placed and how much?

The explosive demolition bullshit is the funniest of them all. I'm no expert, but many in my family are, and I've seen demolitions of tall structures up close. You know what they all had in common? Not falling from the top down.

Exactly.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism

felltoearth

Posts: 14330
Age: 54

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

psikeyhackr wrote:

You do not get the point. Either aircraft impact and fire could cause what we see in the videos or it could not.

That’s not really how this works. You’re positing it couldn’t happen that way. So, how did it happen?

You’ve wasted your life. That’s the real joke here. At least if you went to a church you might have gotten a good spaghetti supper out of the deal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism

felltoearth

Posts: 14330
Age: 54

Print view this post

### Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Structural engineers are amongst the most conservative of professions I have ever met. And yet, the “fake” 9/11 story changed how they design buildings. Huh, it’s almost like it happened exactly the way the NIST report said.

#trutherismisawasteoflife

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism

felltoearth

Posts: 14330
Age: 54

Print view this post

PreviousNext