Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

a reply to: neutronflux

good lord. seriously, have you ever taken a physics class? I'm honestly curious.

what "conspiracy sites" did I get this thinking from?

What happens when you drop a 100 pound mass object on to an empty soda can vs a solid aluminum cylinder of the same dimensions from 9 feet?

so you're saying this is what happened to the twin towers? you're committing to the statement that 30 floors of kinetic energy has more force than 80 standing floors of steel constructed potential energy? please, answer with yes or no.

to put it another way - you're saying that dropping a 100 pound object onto an empty soda or aluminum cylinder from 9 feet up is the exact same phenomena as 30 floors of steel columns falling onto 80 floors of steel columns?

you still haven't answered my question. are you willing to also commit to the statement that the rubble left over is consistent with a fire collapse of 220 floors of steel columns?

You do understand the building is not solid right. The only thing holding the floors to the columns are brackets. When 30 floors fall onto the next floor, it's the floor to column connections that are yielding. Taking the force of the fall. Not the columns until the energy is transferred via the floor connections to column. If the floor connections yield / shear, the energy is never transferred.

So the columns aren't holding each other up?

Using your logic, and the figure a WTC tower weights 500,000 tons, you could safely put 490,000 tons on the top floor of WTC 1!

how? what tells you that this is possible based on my statements to you?

a reply to: facedye

You are here to rant and push conspiracists talking points.

You don't understand basic physics.

Its the floor connections that are taking the force of the falling floors and failing.

On if the pictures look like the collapsed towers are all there, I replied with actual tonnage recovered from the pile. You will not reference any actually facts. You want me to answer from cherry picked views of collapsed buildings spread across 20 times their foot print with no scale from pictures that are two dimensional with no sense of depth. Especially an overhead picture that again offers no sense of depth or scale.

You ignored the question on what is the load capability of one single WTC floor.

You ignored and did not rebuttal the NIST quote the WTC towers could not offer the resistance to stop more than six falling floors.

To your last rant. It was once common practice, and still utilized, to test small samples and models to help determine the characteristics of objects of different size magnitudes.

They use small model ships to help determine hull design and forces applied to the hull.

They use small model airplanes in wind tunnels to determine aerodynamics and wing stress.

The tested baby sized nuclear reactors before creating nuclear reactors of different magnitudes.

Small models of metal connections to determine its ability to resist vertical, horizontal, rotational strain.

They use small metal samples to determine yield strength, it's ductile properties, shear strength, ect......

What to do some debating, or just rant on with no intellectual substance.


What was the rated load capacity of one single WTC tower floor again? Please do not ask anymore questions until you answer this direct question.

a reply to: neutronflux

I referenced many actual facts.

facts about the building's construction itself.

what about my understanding of physics is wrong?

have you ever taken a physics class?

you still haven't answered the simple questions I've posed to you, using your own examples.

don't feel like substantiating your own point of view?

a reply to: facedye

Edited post, see previous. And no, you have not given anything of fact to debate. Just emotional rants. Just opinions on pictures. Sorry.

a reply to: neutronflux

emotional rants? opinions on pictures?

we're talking about kinetic vs. potential energy. these are simple mathematical concepts, based on facts. based on physical laws.

you've been dodging every single direct question in this exchange.

it's cute that you won't directly answer anything I'm asking, but attempt to force me to answer a question about "load capacity" for one WTC floor.

didn't you already cover this? I responded to your point here directly. why are you going over this again?

EDIT: in the interest of coming to brass tacks on this, please enlighten me on what the load capacity is for one WTC floor, again.

a reply to: facedye

You really need to look up the load capacity of a single WTC tower floor. Trying to let you save face.......

And you never commented on how the NIST answer of the towers only being able to stop a maximum of six falling floors I quoted is wrong and why.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please, for the record, state what the load capacity for one WTC floor is.

And you never commented on how the NIST answer of the towers only being able to stop a maximum of six falling floors I quoted is wrong and why.

I answered this question in great detail, several times. shall I go over it again?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

Please, for the record, state what the load capacity for one WTC floor is.

And you never commented on how the NIST answer of the towers only being able to stop a maximum of six falling floors I quoted is wrong and why.

I answered this question in great detail, several times. shall I go over it again?

An answer like this would have saved you some trouble.

From www.tms.org...
"
the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips.

a reply to: facedye

you're wrong. the steel was thicker on the bottom half of the building.

Yes the inner core and exterior were thicker at the bottom.
But the truss connections to the core and exterior were the same.

Think of how wood decks are made today.
They use wood joist hangers.
The deck joists hang from one end and sit on a support beam at the other end.

Well WTC use hangers on both ends with no support in the middle.

Each floor was made from the same trusses and truss connector plates (hangers).
Floor 5 had the same trusses and load capacity as floor 85.
If you overload the hangers on floor 80 everything including floor 80 will fall on 79.
Floor 79 was identical to 80 so the hangers on 79 will fail too.
After x number of floors the exterior will buckle in or out because the lateral support (floors) is gone.

a reply to: samkent

are you comparing the world trade center construction to WOODEN DECKS?

they had NO SUPPORT in the middle? how about the 110 stories of steel columns?

again, what is the force pushing down on the bottom ~50 floors once the 30 top floors came crashing down on 80?

please, walk me through that logic. is the material (steel and all) in the floors being destroyed or reserved?

if it is being destroyed, how can 30 floors of falling steel make it through 80?

if it is reserved, why didn't we see about 110 floors of building material when the dust cleared?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

Please, for the record, state what the load capacity for one WTC floor is.

And you never commented on how the NIST answer of the towers only being able to stop a maximum of six falling floors I quoted is wrong and why.

I answered this question in great detail, several times. shall I go over it again?

An answer like this would have saved you some trouble.

From www.tms.org...
"
the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips.

what kind of trouble? i don't see myself as being in any kind of muddy waters.

thanks for confirming what everybody here already knew - namely, that ~6 floors will never support the force of 30 falling floors. nobody was arguing this logic.

now that we have that out of the way, there's a lot you haven't answered.

Using your logic, and the figure a WTC tower weights 500,000 tons, you could safely put 490,000 tons on the top floor of WTC 1!

how?

What happens when you drop a 100 pound mass object on to an empty soda can vs a solid aluminum cylinder of the same dimensions from 9 feet?

you're saying that dropping a 100 pound object onto an empty soda or aluminum cylinder from 9 feet up is the exact same phenomena as 30 floors of steel columns falling onto 80 floors of steel columns?

EDIT: also, serious question - have you ever taken a physics class?

a reply to: facedye

are you comparing the world trade center construction to WOODEN DECKS?

they had NO SUPPORT in the middle? how about the 110 stories of steel columns?

Yes I am.
Each floor was simple steel floor trusses hanging from each end.
One end was the inner core.
The other was the exterior.

Too much weight and the support connectors failed. Exactly like these wood decks we hear about in the news when too many people crowd onto and old deck.
And if the weight is too heavy for floor 80 then it's too heavy for 79.

I'm not sure what you are calling 'steel columns'.
If you are referring to the exterior columns look at their construction.
Ask yourself how many floors they could stand without buckling assuming there were no floors to brace them.

If you are referring to the inner core, as the floors fell the trusses still connected would twist the core supports to failure.

The construction style of WTC was different from any other.
They wanted a cheap and easy way to build to 110 stories.
And since it failed so utterly architects will never design another the same way.
That you should be able to research and verify on google.

a reply to: samkent

you're not sure what i'm calling steel columns?



what do you see in the middle of the building's core?

and so in the image of the aftermath, you're stating that there's 220 stories of twisted steel columns remaining?

i'm still waiting on you to give me any respectable source to portray this process you're talking about.

Too much weight and the support connectors failed. Exactly like these wood decks we hear about in the news when too many people crowd onto and old deck. And if the weight is too heavy for floor 80 then it's too heavy for 79.

it looks like you're confusing yourself. did the buildings collapse in an asymmetrical pattern due to fire, or due to them being too heavy? how is it exactly like the overcrowding of an old deck? is it clear that the entire deck is there once the structure falls over?

again, i'll ask you this directly. please respond directly: what would be the force pushing down on the building ~50 floors into the collapse? how many upper floors would be coming down on the building at this point?

a reply to: facedye

what would be the force pushing down on the building ~50 floors into the collapse? how many upper floors would be coming down on the building at this point?

The debris from the upper 60 floors.

a reply to: samkent

so a total force of 60 floors of steel columns and building debris will meet the bottom 50 floors of potential energy remaining?

there are 30 floors smashing into 80. is nothing being destroyed on its way down?

"to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

how are the bottom 80 floors of potential energy not destroying the top 30 floors falling onto them, floor by floor, and vice versa?

you're saying the building snowballed on its way down?

a reply to: facedye

What are you babbling about.

It does not matter if the floor was the 40th floor, the 60th floor, or the top floor. Rated wieght capacity has very little to do with its relative position to other floors. The main wieght rating is limited by the floor design and the connections it makes with vertical columns.

Ten floor building. Top floor might be rated for 1000 tons to support communications arrays and ac units. The ninth floor might be only an observation deck and rated for 500 tons. 3rd floor might be a bank with a vault so that floor is rated at 2000 tons and might have an actual load of 1800 tons. The rest of the floors might have a rating of 750 tons.

Building of 100 stories. The 70th floor, and the next thirty floors below it, are EACH only rated for 1300 ton dynamic load. The building fails just above the 70th floor and 45,000 tons crash onto the 70th floor only rated for 1300 tons. The shock load hits the 7Oth floor. The actual decking of the 70th floor takes the shock, but transmits the force to the floor to column connections. The force is too great, so the floor to column connections shear before the force of the falling mass IS EVER TRANSMITTED to the vertical columns. The 70th floor with the 45OOO tons impacts on the 69th floor, and the process starts a new.

a reply to: neutronflux

so you're saying the building snowballed on its way down?

EDIT: i feel like this is a really simple question.

when 30 floors of building material fall on 80 floors of building material, is nothing being destroyed in the process?


EDIT:

It does not matter if the floor was the 40th floor, the 60th floor, or the top floor. Rated wieght capacity has very little to do with its relative position to other floors. The main wieght rating is limited by the floor design and the connections it makes with vertical columns.

are you saying that if only the top floor fell on the bottom 100 floors, the entire building would collapse?

a reply to: facedye

You have to understand something important here. These guys who will support the OS to the death have put MORE time and energy into twisting the facts and explaining the OS tale intricately than the actual perpetrators have....and they've had 15 years to do it.

That's why so many threads in this forum are so lengthy. The OSers can pull up one of the many links they have in their stash to intricately explain pressure, weight, velocity, temperature and tons of other factors, yet it's false. It's all a BS explanation dressed up in scientific language.

Did what happened that day look right to you?
After researching things, did the OS sit right with you?

You probably answered from your gut feeling. And they will happily tell you that your gut is wrong and you're not knowledgeable enough of the topic.

At the end of the day, we have a government that's lied to us about a million different events and controveries over the years. To think a major event like 9/11, with so many different military implications following, that they would just come out of character and tell the truth? Not a chance.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

i do understand this. i'm doing this for people on the fence.