Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: hellobruce

I'm pushing a conspiracy theory?

looks like I spent the last couple of pages talking specifically about newton's first laws of physics in relation to what happened to the twin towers.

where's the theory?

while we're at it, where are the examples and cited sources I asked for?

Well, then describe what happen to WTC one and two just using Newton's three laws.

Most people just don't know any better, but for those with access to all the data and information, to proceed to protect and guard the Big Lie of 9/11, is reprehensible.

You sure wouldn't catch me trying to defend it, while calling myself a "sceptic".

a reply to: neutronflux

what should have happened is that you'd have the remains of 220 floors of steel columns left over.

you say it collapsed? fine, then you should have had a great big pile of debris.

every steel building known to man that collapses leaves a trace of comparable mass behind. be careful here, because when you state that the floors pancaked (30 falling floors turned into 60 which then turned into 90), you'd also have to accept what that concludes. specifically speaking, if the mass of 30 turned into 60 turned into 90 on its way down, you're explicitly claiming that most if not all of the building's mass is retained.

does this look relatively close to 220 floors of steel columns?



if not, then you really have to think about your understanding of what happened to the twin towers.

it's pretty simple, actually. you should have seen the mass of 30 floors fall into the building, then fall over (maybe with the building itself) once the kinetic energy of 30 floors being destroyed on their way down met the potential energy of 80 standing floors of steel columns. if the core structure of the building failed, it should have fallen over to one side as well based on the path of least resistance.

want to dispute that? fine, please show me an accurate model of what happened to the towers all the way to the ground, or show me any other physical collapse that demonstrates what you think happened.

can't find one? looks like it's time for you to rethink your "theory."

EDIT:

and please don't reply back with some long, arduous and arbitrary description of "sheared floors" or "the weight rating of individual floors."

if you're not going to contribute a citation or source that helps your position from this point on, please respond back in a concise manner to the best of your ability. if your complicated reasoning is spot on and 100% accurate, you should be able to condense your explanation, like i did in bold above.

i can start going through the literal mathematical equations with you (which i have done myself) and shower you with technicalities. in reality, none of that is necessary for anyone with common sense to reach a consensus on this.

a reply to: facedye

Another rant. Let's start simple. Please define the the WTC towers into terms of Newton's three laws and set up the context of your arguments.

This is what you are misguided on. You are ignoring inelastic and plastic deformation. Hooks law. And stress and strain. component failure.

This is where your Logic is false. In you false narrative, a massive building of 100,000 tons would not be damaged by a 5 ton wrecking ball. But a wrecking ball can bring down a 100,000 ton building. Bigger the wrecking ball, faster the process. By the way, a small hammer cannot be used to crack a small piece off a mountain? It's all about point of impact.

This is your false argument. Newton's third law does not make building's indestructible. Why would any given floor of a building have a maximum and independent load capacity. And in your false logic, floor capacity would increase and be a sole function of rising floor numbers as the total amount of mass increases under each floor. No. Floor load capacity is a function of each floors design and hardware.

Back to the wrecking ball. The wrecking ball hits a building with potential energy and kinetic energy. The energy creates a force at the point of impact. The material deforms at the point of impact beyond the MATERIALS ability of deformation and fails. Newton's laws are not violated. They go into creating flying debris and other items that resulted in collateral damage. By your logic, a wrecking ball poking a hole in a more massive building would violate Newton's third law.

The top floors of the towers, once in motion, were a huge massive wrecking ball. Is that such a hard concept. I think you are caught up in the old argument, would you rather be hit by a ton of bricks or feathers......

I don't want to be hit by a five ton wall, or by five tons of bricks. Especially if the five tons of bricks are acting like a wrecking ball and a ball mill at the same time.

Please, let's start your arguments by defining the WTC in terms of Newton's laws.

originally posted by: facedye

and please don't reply back with some long, arduous and arbitrary description of "sheared floors" or "the weight rating of individual floors."

This is how sad your argument is. You have to ignore the actual physical limitations of the towers.

a reply to: facedye

Posted this once and you ignored it.....

From: www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST's analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.
In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

a reply to: neutronflux

From: www.nist.gov...
11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
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.

On last thought. If you could treat the bottoms of the towers as uniform single point masses incapable of deformation with instantaneous and uniform force transmission and explain the whole event in a paragraph of calculations, then why bother with computer models?

And for the last time. The falling thirty floors impacted the topmost static floor. The energy created a force that caused the floor connections at the topmost floor to go past their point of deformation, so the floor connections failed. The energy of collapse was not instantaneously transferred to the static portion of the towers. The energy hitting the topmost floor created a force that failed the topmost floor connections before that force could be transferred to the vertical columns. Like a fist breaking a board held by another person's hands. This resulted is a wrecking ball like action with increasing mass that failed connections floor by floor.

a reply to: facedye

From: Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections
from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of
the World Trade Center Towers

Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occurred
within the heat-affected zone of the base metals
BY S.W. BANOVIC AND T. A. SIEWERT

Address: www.aws.org...&ved=0ahUKEwjm58e3rrXPAhVBUGMKHbiJC2MQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-ZURFPKhzmmAgoP6VqkKd75YbyA&sig2=bGRBJm7q2sAO_ uwY9Ewi8w

Summary
Analysis of the connections supporting
the composite floor system of the WTC
towers showed that at and below the im-
pact floors, the greater majority (above
90%) of the floor truss connections were
either bent downward or completely re-
moved from the exterior column. This was
probably related to the overloading of the
floors below the impact region after col-
lapse initiation. Depending upon weld
joint geometry, detachment of the main
load-bearing seats was a result of either
fracture in the heat affected zone of the
base material (standoff plate detached
from spandrel) or through the weld metal
(seat angle detached from standoff plate).
Failure in both cases was assumed to be a
result of a shear mechanism as a result of
overloading from floors above impacting
those below. There did not appear to be a
significant change in distribution of failure
modes of the floor truss connections when
comparing those connections inside vs.
outside of the impact region or those ex-
posed to pre-collapse fires and those that
were not.

a reply to: neutronflux

you're a bit too far gone.

lol, "another rant."

and then you proceed to post 4 separate responses the size of an essay, never addressing any actual point i've raised.

And for the last time. The falling thirty floors impacted the topmost static floor. The energy created a force that caused the floor connections at the topmost floor to go past their point of deformation, so the floor connections failed. The energy of collapse was not instantaneously transferred to the static portion of the towers. The energy hitting the topmost floor created a force that failed the topmost floor connections before that force could be transferred to the vertical columns. Like a fist breaking a board held by another person's hands. This resulted is a wrecking ball like action with increasing mass that failed connections floor by floor.

prove that. show me any model or physical collapse that has these characteristics.

you can't just keep saying this over and over again and not back it up with proof. where's your proof that this is what happened?

originally posted by: neutronflux
On last thought. If you could treat the bottoms of the towers as uniform single point masses incapable of deformation with instantaneous and uniform force transmission and explain the whole event in a paragraph of calculations, then why bother with computer models?

what in the world are you talking about?

i'm talking about what happens when moving mass meets resting mass.

"incapable of deformation, instantaneous and uniform force transmission"

i never once used any of these terms. looks like you're not really comprehending this.

why bother with computer models? are you saying you don't have any to back up what you're saying? of course you don't. prove me wrong.

i'll tell you why - it's because if your math is right, then your model is right. if your model is right, then that's an accurate representation of reality. you have to be able to break things down as well as condense them if you have a good grasp on a concept.

a reply to: neutronflux

Back to the wrecking ball. The wrecking ball hits a building with potential energy and kinetic energy. The energy creates a force at the point of impact. The material deforms at the point of impact beyond the MATERIALS ability of deformation and fails. Newton's laws are not violated. They go into creating flying debris and other items that resulted in collateral damage. By your logic, a wrecking ball poking a hole in a more massive building would violate Newton's third law.

what about when 1 wrecking ball slams into 6 wrecking balls?

how does the top of the building represent a wrecking ball to you while the bottom represents bricks? the design was the same throughout, with thicker steel holding up the bottom half of the building.

apples and oranges.

a reply to: facedye

what should have happened is that you'd have the remains of 220 floors of steel columns left over.

you say it collapsed? fine, then you should have had a great big pile of debris.

They did.
They removed 1.8 million tons of debris.
It took months to remove.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

Back to the wrecking ball. The wrecking ball hits a building with potential energy and kinetic energy. The energy creates a force at the point of impact. The material deforms at the point of impact beyond the MATERIALS ability of deformation and fails. Newton's laws are not violated. They go into creating flying debris and other items that resulted in collateral damage. By your logic, a wrecking ball poking a hole in a more massive building would violate Newton's third law.

what about when 1 wrecking ball slams into 6 wrecking balls?

how does the top of the building represent a wrecking ball to you while the bottom represents bricks? the design was the same throughout, with thicker steel holding up the bottom half of the building.

apples and oranges.

What happens when the first wrecking ball moves with enough force the impact results in deformation and failure of the wrecking balls.......

The floor connections were dependent on floor design. When the floor connections failed, there was no means for the force to be transferred to the building frame.

a reply to: samkent

1. it's questionable to me that you think 1.8 million tons of removed "debris" substantiates the loss and recovery of all WTC plaza prefixes that were destroyed that day. i don't really think you've ever seen WTC plaza before every prefix there was absolutely destroyed.

WTC 1 & 2: 500,000 tons each

and what about WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7? are you saying that 5 additional buildings being completely destroyed can be summed up to only contain 800,000 tons of debris? this is inadequate.

not to mention, you're going off of information prepared by the same institution that never explained WTC7 in their own official report.

2. so where's the huge pile of debris?

a reply to: neutronflux

why don't you tell me?

please, state for everyone here what would happen if the first wrecking ball moves "with enough force" to deform and cause the 6 below it to "fail."

will you still have 7 observable wrecking balls left over?

EDIT:

will the dropped wrecking ball go straight down, THROUGH the resting 6?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: facedye

what should have happened is that you'd have the remains of 220 floors of steel columns left over.

you say it collapsed? fine, then you should have had a great big pile of debris.

They did.
They removed 1.8 million tons of debris.
It took months to remove.

Why use facts? It's better to reference a picture of the collapsed towers with no scale or sense of depth. Then ask if the collapsed buildings, which were 95 percent space and spread in an area twenty times their footprints, was all there. Seems a good choice for a student of physics.

Or maybe do something like:

Account for all WTC material removed. Then make a realistic account of the dust. State how much energy was needed to create the quantity of pulverization required to collapse the towers. Then show the power source and show the difference in mass from the statistics regarding WTC clean up.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

why don't you tell me?

please, state for everyone here what would happen if the first wrecking ball moves "with enough force" to deform and cause the 6 below it to "fail."

will you still have 7 observable wrecking balls left over?

EDIT:

will the dropped wrecking ball go straight down, THROUGH the resting 6?

Are you going to show another picture with no scale and depth and ask if the towers look all there.

Why don't you start with logic and reference the statistics of tower material removed. Because it does not suit your false pulverization narrative.

And yes, if you collected all the broken parts and dust of the wrecking balls, the mass would be all there. Conservation of mass.


The problem of pulverization. You still needed to account for the building mass, state the energy required for your narrative of pulverization, and the amount of mass missing due to pulverization vs recovered. This needs to be in the context of you providing the amount of pulverization required to achieve tower collapse and by how much energy.

a reply to: neutronflux

that photograph has MUCH scale and depth. you can easily find very many aerial photographs if you actually wanted to make a case against the photo. too bad you didn't choose to do that.

i don't have a pulverization narrative. that point of view came DIRECTLY from mainstream news reporting on the day of the 11th. i've posted that report here many times, which seems like you have yet to watch it. i'm not pushing a narrative.

will the dropped wrecking ball go straight down, THROUGH the resting 6?

a reply to: facedye

I am done playing, and this is why.

You reference pictures than the actual statistics of WTC clean up tonnage.

You told me I could not reference those silly load capacities of WTC floors.

You want to treat the towers as a solid single mass object that cannot be deformed.

Will not define how the force of collapse of the falling floors was instantaneously and uniformly transferred to the static portion of the towers.

You will not reference how much energy was needed to cause pulverization.

You will not state or reference how much mass was pulverized into oblivion vs actual tower mass recovered.