The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[newolder]

I did, using the data supplied. The figure quoted is correct. What does the video evidence show?

The video shows squat because of all of the dust.

Is it 400 seconds, 40s, 4s, 0.4s or what? Surely an estimate has been made somewhere, by someone?

[tolman]

It's obviously meaningfully slower than free fall, because free-falling exterior panels were falling rather faster than the main collapse zone.

[The_Metatron]

!	GENERAL MODNOTE I don't suppose anyone cares to guess why I locked this topic? The_Metatron, many, many reported posts.

[psikeyhackr]

I know there are hundreds of pages of posts about 9/11 but I was kind of hoping there were some links to the science that someone has handy so I don't have to click through lots of logic and name calling.

You might find the following link helpful, although that depends on your inclination towards conspiracy theories or not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

That link claims to be rational and says this:

The towers fell in their own footprint; if they collapsed from metal fatigue they should have been all over the place

Rebuttal: While the idea of a giant building toppling over like a felled tree is popular in fiction, in reality the structure is designed to bear its weight straight down and in no other direction; throwing a massive building severely out of equilibrium would cause it to fall almost vertically, no matter what direction the initial force was applied from. (It is possible to fell a tall structure like a tree by selectively removing large amounts of support at one side or corner, near the base, but this requires a specific, well-prepared, and overt demolitions plan and either the intent to do so or a horse-doctor's dose of failure.)

In the case of the WTC, the upper floors detached and fell through lower undamaged sections, which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke. This falling mass would be too large for any one floor below it to stop or substantially redirect.

The issue is not about falling in its own footprint, the issue is collapse time. Also no one is suggesting that one level would stop the collapse it is a matter of slowing it down and would it slow faster than it increased mass. If so then the kinetic energy would decrease and 15 levels could not destroy 90 levels in the case of the north tower.

The obvious question would be how many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on each level of the tower all of the way down the building. Shouldn't most physicists and structural engineers have thought of something that obvious in 2 years, much less FIFTEEN? So where is the data and who asked?

Then there is the matter of physical models or computer simulations or why not both? It only took 4 months to make a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940, to simulate the oscillation. That model was 1/200th scale and 50 ft long and had to be built in a wind tunnel. So why don't we have a model of the north tower collapse?

Of course in 1940 they did not have electronic computers so they could not do an FEA (Finite Element Analysis) at the time. But now we are supposed to be able to simulate the climate of the planet a century into the future well enough to be worth the effort, but we do not have a simulation explaining how the north tower came down in less than 25 seconds. That rational Wiki does not mention the time from start to finish of collapse. Why not?

So 2001: A Stupid Odyssey is utterly nonsensical no matter what the truth is. All conspiracies are irrelevant and mostly time wasting distractions from the middle-school physics.

That link claiming to be "rational" is stupid on the basis of what it leaves out. There is no discussion of the Collapse TIME though it brings up every idiotic conspiracy under the Sun.

That is one of the curious things you may begin to notice over time. It is not what people tell you that really matters but what they leave out and you must find or figure out for yourself. Or find some tin-foil creep that mentions the obvious.

psik

[SafeAsMilk]

I concur. I just feel bad having people repeat something they've probably said a million times. But I also don't have time to read through hundreds of pages of discussion.

As you say they've probably said it a million times: you only have to read through a fraction of the thread before you start seeing things repeating over and over again, then you know you're done. Most threads like that tend to go that way in my experience.

[psikeyhackr]

I concur. I just feel bad having people repeat something they've probably said a million times. But I also don't have time to read through hundreds of pages of discussion.

As you say they've probably said it a million times: you only have to read through a fraction of the thread before you start seeing things repeating over and over again, then you know you're done. Most threads like that tend to go that way in my experience.

So are you talking about a thread or are you talking about junk science in relation to 9/11?

psik

[felltoearth]

I'm presuming he means threads on the subject of junk science.

[Weaver]

I know there are hundreds of pages of posts about 9/11 but I was kind of hoping there were some links to the science that someone has handy so I don't have to click through lots of logic and name calling.

You might find the following link helpful, although that depends on your inclination towards conspiracy theories or not.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

That link claims to be rational and says this:

The towers fell in their own footprint; if they collapsed from metal fatigue they should have been all over the place

Rebuttal: While the idea of a giant building toppling over like a felled tree is popular in fiction, in reality the structure is designed to bear its weight straight down and in no other direction; throwing a massive building severely out of equilibrium would cause it to fall almost vertically, no matter what direction the initial force was applied from. (It is possible to fell a tall structure like a tree by selectively removing large amounts of support at one side or corner, near the base, but this requires a specific, well-prepared, and overt demolitions plan and either the intent to do so or a horse-doctor's dose of failure.)

In the case of the WTC, the upper floors detached and fell through lower undamaged sections, which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke. This falling mass would be too large for any one floor below it to stop or substantially redirect.

The issue is not about falling in its own footprint, the issue is collapse time. Also no one is suggesting that one level would stop the collapse it is a matter of slowing it down and would it slow faster than it increased mass. If so then the kinetic energy would decrease and 15 levels could not destroy 90 levels in the case of the north tower.

The obvious question would be how many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on each level of the tower all of the way down the building. Shouldn't most physicists and structural engineers have thought of something that obvious in 2 years, much less FIFTEEN? So where is the data and who asked?

Then there is the matter of physical models or computer simulations or why not both? It only took 4 months to make a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940, to simulate the oscillation. That model was 1/200th scale and 50 ft long and had to be built in a wind tunnel. So why don't we have a model of the north tower collapse?

Of course in 1940 they did not have electronic computers so they could not do an FEA (Finite Element Analysis) at the time. But now we are supposed to be able to simulate the climate of the planet a century into the future well enough to be worth the effort, but we do not have a simulation explaining how the north tower came down in less than 25 seconds. That rational Wiki does not mention the time from start to finish of collapse. Why not?

So 2001: A Stupid Odyssey is utterly nonsensical no matter what the truth is. All conspiracies are irrelevant and mostly time wasting distractions from the middle-school physics.

That link claiming to be "rational" is stupid on the basis of what it leaves out. There is no discussion of the Collapse TIME though it brings up every idiotic conspiracy under the Sun.

That is one of the curious things you may begin to notice over time. It is not what people tell you that really matters but what they leave out and you must find or figure out for yourself. Or find some tin-foil creep that mentions the obvious.

psik

Talk about moving the goalposts!

The Rational Wiki segment was addressing the specific claim that the building supposedly wouldn't collapse in its own footprint - that's it, nothing else.

Claiming that it is incorrect because it doesn't address a different conspiracy conspiracy theory detail which you consider to be important is dishonest as fuck, even for your posting style.

You've moved the goalposts not only down the field, but out of the stadium and across the city.

[psikeyhackr]

Talk about moving the goalposts!

The Rational Wiki segment was addressing the specific claim that the building supposedly wouldn't collapse in its own footprint - that's it, nothing else.

Claiming that it is incorrect because it doesn't address a different conspiracy conspiracy theory detail which you consider to be important is dishonest as fuck, even for your posting style.

You've moved the goalposts not only down the field, but out of the stadium and across the city.

Doing a search on "mass" is moving goal posts?

The title of the page is "9/11".

It is all MY FAULT that facts about 9/11 ain't there.

Attention: Prog Snob please take note of this as the logic of 9/11 debates.

psik

[Weaver]

Talk about moving the goalposts!

The Rational Wiki segment was addressing the specific claim that the building supposedly wouldn't collapse in its own footprint - that's it, nothing else.

Claiming that it is incorrect because it doesn't address a different conspiracy conspiracy theory detail which you consider to be important is dishonest as fuck, even for your posting style.

You've moved the goalposts not only down the field, but out of the stadium and across the city.

Doing a search on "mass" is moving goal posts?

The title of the page is "9/11".

It is all MY FAULT that facts about 9/11 ain't there.

Attention: Prog Snob please take note of this as the logic of 9/11 debates.

psik

You specifically responded to the section about the collapse footprint, then did an about-face to talk about something unrelated - the collapse speed.

I don't care what you, or anyone else, searched on - the movement of goal posts occurred when you bitched about supposed faults in the Rational Wiki article, citing one particular segment then talking about something else entirely.

And yes, I do hope Prog Snob notes what you use for "logic."

[tolman]

My inclination towards everything is that I think anything is possible, but I don't seek out to believe in conspiracy theories. Hell, I don't want to find out that our government would actually do something like 9/11. That would scare the shit out of me. I'm a man of reason, though, so sometimes I want to read both sides before drawing a conclusion.

That implies there are two well-defined 'sides'.
In reality, there are all manner of arguments for various conspiracy theories, and much of the supposedly pro-conspiracy arguing seems to be picking real or imaginary holes in some official (or purportedly official) explanation, and claiming that is evidence for a conspiracy, when even if a particular point had merit, it would be entirely compatible with non-conspiracy explanations, to the extent that there is no obvious mechanism for objectively judging whether the point is more compatible' with a conspiracy than with a non-conspiracy explanation.

Even just limiting things to science and engineering doesn't necessarily help much, since a meaningful amount of what is criticised by conspiracy theorists isn't actually some 'official' explanation at all, but simply the opinion of one individual, and many of the criticisms are not scientific, but more like appeals to common sense (like 'no similar buildings have collapsed due to fire before').

Possibly a useful starting point is to try and work out what someone arguing against something is really arguing against.
If someone claims some error or omission in an actually 'official' explanation (to the extent such things exist in reality) is evidence for a conspiracy, that's at heart an argument that in the absence of a conspiracy, an [supposedly] official explanation of an event would be expected to be perfect and complete.

[tolman]

Also no one is suggesting that one level would stop the collapse it is a matter of slowing it down and would it slow faster than it increased mass. If so then the kinetic energy would decrease and 15 levels could not destroy 90 levels in the case of the north tower.

That is simply bogus reasoning.
You can certainly explore the issue of what the maximum speed of a 'natural' collapse could have been, but it's factually wrong to make a claim based on kinetic energy of '15 vs 90 floors', when when the actual collapse demonstrably involved a succession of local interactions where all that mattered was the ability of the local structure to support the specific loads applied to it at any given time, in the way those loads were applied.
From an 'energy' perspective, the relevant test is comparing energy 'absorbed' with energy 'released', not 'kinetic energy of the initial top part' with 'size of entire structure underneath'.

Indeed, simple thought experiments regarding your 'numbers of floors' ideas have been presented to you numerous times, but never properly engaged with by you.

I could go into detail, but not really for your sake, as you'd likely just ignore things you didn't want to hear again, and it does risk duplicating the other thread.

[psikeyhackr]

some links to the science that someone has handy

WTC 7 Evaluation Finds: Fire DID NOT Cause the Collapse of WTC 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IVCSpalbA


I am not very interested in WTC7 myself.

psik

[laklak]

Da fuq is a "natural collapse" anyway? Ain't nothing "natural" about two 767s loaded with fuel flying into a building.

[psikeyhackr]

Da fuq is a "natural collapse" anyway? Ain't nothing "natural" about two 767s loaded with fuel flying into a building.

He said, "SPEED of a natural collapse".

Reading is Fundamental.

psik

[felltoearth]

I am not very interested in WTC7 myself.

psik

Lol. Of course not.

[Weaver]

No, WTC7 was not brought down solely by uncontained fires.

The massive overload of debris falling from WTC 1 and 2 also contributed significantly to the collapse of WTC7.

But it was mostly the fires, causing expansion of structural support members.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 4/4278874/

[tolman]

WTC 7 Evaluation Finds: Fire DID NOT Cause the Collapse of WTC 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IVCSpalbA

Well, that was a long half hour, but it did raise some interesting points.
It'd certainly be interesting to see someone suitably qualified respond to that (very recent) presentation somewhere.

Though he did seem to talk about various NIST fire scenarios at the start, the eventual conclusion seemed a bit rushed, and I wasn't clear whether they'd looked at fire scenarios other than the NIST ones (I think he said they'd modelled using all 3 NIST fire scenarios).

I wasn't entirely clear if his model (which he explained was better than the NIST one) was purely testing the NIST's 'probable failure mechanism' using the NIST's three thermal scenarios, or if it would have shown any other failure mechanisms, if such could exist and/or if the NISt's worst fire scenario was the worst possible one in reality, or just the worst of the three they modelled with.

[laklak]

Da fuq is a "natural collapse" anyway? Ain't nothing "natural" about two 767s loaded with fuel flying into a building.

He said, "SPEED of a natural collapse".

Reading is Fundamental.

psik

Yes, it certainly is. I'll repeat the question in case you missed it: what the fuck is a "natural collapse" of a structure? I mean, one would have to define that before one could measure it's "speed", wouldn't one? Otherwise you stand the chance of mistaking a "natural collapse" with an "unnatural collapse", right? I'm sure, since it seems so important to your theories, that you have beaucoup data about similar, massive, steel structures collapsing "naturally", and lots of data about the "speed" of that collapse, you know, in order to compare scenarios? Oh, and we'll also need data on the "natural collapse" of a massive steel structure when it's hit by two fucking 767s at 250 knots or so.

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, it certainly is. I'll repeat the question in case you missed it: what the fuck is a "natural collapse" of a structure? I mean, one would have to define that before one could measure it's "speed", wouldn't one?

Gravitational acceleration in free fall is unchanged regardless of the cause.

psik