The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

Again, you still don't get the point.

If airliners and fire could do it then it should be possible to prove it based on initial conditions. But if you do not know the distributions of steel and concrete in a 1360 foot skyscraper then you do not know the initial conditions.

From your perspective one of us must be stupid.

Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

[psikeyhackr]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eE8d94qGPo

#trutherismisawasteoflife


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The NCSTAR1 report says "global collapse ensued".

You are free to search for and tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Of course you have not proven that you have ever met a single structural engineer.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eE8d94qGPo

#trutherismisawasteoflife


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The NCSTAR1 report says "global collapse ensued".

You are free to search for and tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Of course you have not proven that you have ever met a single structural engineer.

And, what the fuck have you proven?

You've had enough time to become a structural engineer.

Full of shit.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Again, you still don't get the point.

If airliners and fire could do it then it should be possible to prove it based on initial conditions. But if you do not know the distributions of steel and concrete in a 1360 foot skyscraper then you do not know the initial conditions.

From your perspective one of us must be stupid.

Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

This crap brained shit is all based on this premise:

If airliners and fire could do it...

Could?

They did do it. This was observed.

Let's see if we can stay on the ball.

[psikeyhackr]

The NIST tells us the total amount of steel in the towers:

NCSTAR1 1-3
INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.

The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers.


NCSTAR1 1-3B
Upon arrival at NIST, the samples were catalogued, documented, and when possible, identified as to their precise, as-built location within the buildings. The vast majority of the structural components are from WTC 1 and WTC 2.

It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered. The following lists the recovered structural steel elements:

NCSTAR1 CollapseofTowers

STRUCTURAL STEELS
5.5.1 Types and Sources Roughly 200,000 tons of steel were used in the construction of the two WTC towers. The building plans called for an unusually broad array of steel grades and multiple techniques for fabricating the structure from them. The NIST team obtained the information needed to characterize the steels from structural drawings provided by The Port Authority, copies of correspondence during the fabrication stages, steel mill test reports, interviews with fabrication company staff, search of the contemporaneous literature, and measurements of properties at NIST.

Sorting through this immense amount of information was made difficult by the large number of fabricators and suppliers, the use of proprietary grades by some of the manufacturers; and the fact that the four fabricators of the impact and fire floor structural elements no longer existed at the time of this Investigation.

Where is the total amount of concrete?

[Agi Hammerthief]

Where is the total amount of concrete?

more importantly: why where no concrete samples collected to determine the cause of collapse

[Agi Hammerthief]

oh, look what I found in my saved posts
weights of floors, should be elementary school math to calculate the numbers you are frequently asking for.

The buildings were square in plan, 207 ft 2 in. by
207 ft 2 in. (based on column reference lines), and with story heights of typically 12 ft. The core area was
approximately 135 ft by 87 ft in plan.
...
As stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50 percent of the gravity
loads.
...
The floor system of a framed-tube structure is designed for four main functions. First, it supports the
vertical gravity loads on the floor and transfers these loads to the external and core columns. Second, as a
diaphragm it distributes wind loads to the side walls of the framed tube structure. Third, it, together with
the external frame, provides the stiffness to resist torsional motion of the building. Fourth, it provides
lateral support to the columns, thereby, keeping the columns stable.
...
The floor inside the core and the mechanical floors were framed with structural steel shapes with welded
shear studs, acting compositely with normal-weight concrete slabs. The thickness of concrete slab in
these floors varied from 4.5 in. to 8 in. depending upon the design load requirements.

you might want to pay special attention to the underlined bit
you'll find the weights for floors at
Figure 5–1. Design dead load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: floor inside of core.
Figure 5–2. Design partition load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: floor inside of core.
Figure 5–3. Design dead load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: floor outside of core.

In regard to strength requirements, the member or assembly must be capable of supporting
the following (note: no specific reference to a particular type of building material is given in this section
of the Code):
1. Without visible damage (other than hairline cracks) its own weight plus a test load equal to
150 percent of the design live load plus 150 percent of any dead load that will be added at the
site, and
2. Without collapse its own weight plus a test load equal to 50 percent of its own weight plus
250 percent of the design live load plus 250 percent of any dead load that will be added at the
site.

That is: without being heated by a few tons of burning jet fuel

numbers for live loads:
Figure 5–5. Design live-load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: floor inside of core.
Figure 5–6. Design live-load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: floor inside of core.
Figure 5–7. Design live-load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: column inside of core.
Figure 5–8. Design live-load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: floor outside of core.
Figure 5–9. Design live-load criteria for WTC 1 and WTC 2: column outside of core.

[psikeyhackr]

oh, look what I found in my saved posts
weights of floors, should be elementary school math to calculate the numbers you are frequently asking for.

[

Do all of the math that you claim is elementary that you want.

Nothing there says anything about the distribution of steel down the core or the perimeter.

[psikeyhackr]

Tell us YOUR hypothesis.

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.

Where’s your case?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Didn't you say GOODBYE in post 9614?

Don't you have to say HELLO to come back?

[felltoearth]

It’s a worthwhile question that you can’t seem to answer after 20 years. Imagine being that obsessed and still ignorant.

[psikeyhackr]

I'm no master of physics, nor am I someone that's spent really any amount of time discussing this topic. Is that comment about 20 seconds meant to suggest that the time frame is shorter than one might expect? And if so, wouldn't a shorter time frame be indicative of a greater application of force, and therefore a greater potential to destroy the lower floors? Wouldn't you also expect a cascade effect, similar to dominos, where the top floor destroys the infrastructure of the floor below it, and then both those floors collapse on the next floor, and so on?

In 1940 it took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations. At the time they did not know the bridge would collapse and the objective was to stop the oscillations. There were no electronic computers in 1940 to do virtual models and simulations.

Curiously enough the Twin Towers were about the first buildings to be designed with the help of a computer. Some 1959 IBM computer was used to design the core columns.

Now computers are used to simulate the climate of a planet 8,000 miles in diameter with 2 billion cubic miles of atmosphere but after 20 years we do not have physical or virtual models explaining the straight down collapses of a couple of skyscrapers.

Dominoes do not sustain damage as they are knocked over. Damage requires energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed it just changes form. The only source of energy in the North Tower collapse was the falling mass. Doing damage would take kinetic energy slowing the falling mass, increasing collapse time.

A proper simulation should either show this or prove I am wrong.

But a lot of people do not even want the data that would be necessary to make a simulation. They won't even death the NCSTAR1 report to see if it has the concrete. LOL

Too much intellectual effort but they will spend time posting at me.

[Agi Hammerthief]

oh, look what I found in my saved posts
weights of floors, should be elementary school math to calculate the numbers you are frequently asking for.

[

Do all of the math that you claim is elementary that you want.

Nothing there says anything about the distribution of steel down the core or the perimeter.

it does say something about design criteria of the standard floors, from which you could calculate the total weight of a floor.
If you where honestly interested in such thing. Instead you complain about some other numbers missing.
Dishonesty tactics - trolling.

btw, I did read your first response with a different complaint, at least you noticed it was stupid.

[psikeyhackr]

Xxxxxxxxxxx

[Greg the Grouper]

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

What math? Whose math?

Where did the NIST do any math to account for the collapse?

Presumably, the NIST used math to reach their conclusion concerning how quickly the towers fell and how likely it is that such events are explained by the official story.

You know acceleration due to force or gravity, the time that elapsed from start to finish, and thanks to Agi Hammerthief you know how much each floor weighed.

Now, you should be able to calculate the momentum from the initial fall. As for how the towers were designed to support themselves, surely you've searched for blueprints?

From where I stand, you certainly have the information necessary to corroborate the main points of the story: whether or not the floor beneath the impact floors could negate the momentum of the impact floors such as to reduce the speed of their descent to any significant degree, and how long the entire event would have taken to unfold even just assuming an average speed of descent.

What's the problem?

Too late, caught it.

[psikeyhackr]

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

What math? Whose math?

Where did the NIST do any math to account for the collapse?

Presumably, the NIST used math to reach their conclusion concerning how quickly the towers fell and how likely it is that such events are explained by the official story.

I am not responsible for your presumptions.

Apparently you did not even know that the NIST did not support the pancake theory.

Doing math on complex interactions of masses when the masses are unknown is total nonsense.

So believe whatever nonsense you want. I showed you what the NIST said about the steel total. Find the concrete total if you can. If it ain't there draw whatever conclusion you prefer.

[Greg the Grouper]

I am not responsible for your presumptions.

True, though I never claimed you were. Even if we assume that NIST did no math whatsoever, and the official explanation isn't physically possible, then doing the math yourself should reveal discrepancies that can't be accounted for with human error, no?

Apparently you did not even know that the NIST did not support the pancake theory.

Nope. As I said, I've never really looked into this before.

Doing math on complex interactions of masses when the masses are unknown is total nonsense.

They're not, though; Agi Hammerthief explained how you can calculate these masses, and surely blueprints exist that should show you how the the towers were constructed.

So believe whatever nonsense you want. I showed you what the NIST said about the steel total. Find the concrete total if you can. If it ain't there draw whatever conclusion you prefer.

So again, Agi Hammerthief gave you the means to obtain this information.

There's literally nothing stopping you from putting this all together. You've stayed on this for 20 years, right? Why not spend another half hour on some math and get an approximate?

[Agi Hammerthief]

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?

let’s check the english language:

admit (shortened)
(1) If you admit someone, you allow them to enter an area or a building.
(2) If you are admitted to an institution, the institution starts taking care of you.
(3) If you admit something, you say reluctantly that it is true.

NIST is using admit in the report in the context of (1) when discussing types of bolts and meterials „admitted“ by the building code.

From the way you employ the word in your post I gather that you use it in the context of (3)
Until you show that NIST ever denied the tilting and in the report writes that contrary to their earlier uttering the tilting did indeed occur…
I shall maintain that you writing „The NIST admits that the top of the South Tower tilted 20 to 25 degrees.“ is a blatant lie.

edit: spelling/grammar

[Hermit]

TIL that mention of the Tacoma Narrows bridge occurs in 28 of psikeyhackr's posts in this thread.

[Agi Hammerthief]

TIL that mention of the Tacoma Narrows bridge occurs in 28 of psikeyhackr's posts in this thread.

I‘m sure if the WTC towers had collapsed after completion as quickly as the Tacoma Narrows bridge, a model would have been build just as quickly.

[psikeyhackr]

TIL that mention of the Tacoma Narrows bridge occurs in 28 of psikeyhackr's posts in this thread.

[/quot[spoiler=]

Only 28! God damn I have to do it some more.

Tacoma video with model
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fMsjyQHtmiU
Model motion @ 7:03, crappy sound
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQb_i6MJAVs

The point is that good scale models can be used to demonstrate the physics of what could and could not happen. No computers in 1940 to do virtual models. Computers have gotten more powerful and cheaper since 2005. But it is not even possible to make good models virtual or physical without accurate steel and concrete distribution data.

Then some brilliant individuals won't check for the total amount of concrete when informed it ain't in the report but expect me to give a damn about their "insults".