Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: and14263
At least you were not condescending in anyway.

You know what they say the TRUTH hurts

Shame you don't have a more acceptable style because your content is respectful.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Yet again a post with nothing, the point of the thread was the impacts and damage caused, strange thing is if a truther site posts a picture of a building fire you guys NEVER consider the construction differences then, I suppose that's down to the fact you don't have a clue about the subject.

So it's easy for a truther site to make it seem true to you lack of knowledge or experience so easily fooled .

I find it ironic that you accuse me of posting 'nothing' when that's exactly what this thread is, nothing but your opinion piece with fancy dressing and you trying to sell it as factual. I've seen it many times here on ATS, and the quality of my replies reflect directly to the quality, or lack of, of your thread.

Maybe I'm being harsh, it is quite a scary thought to think that 9/11 didn't happen they way you've been lead to believe, but creating threads with disjointed points and being insulting to those who are quite rightly suspicious of the official line, is no way to behave

Additionally, some of those people you're being disrespectful to have written some great threads over the years with some equally great and understandable points

a reply to: wmd_2008

Wait to you see possible loads in the structure during the collapse you will be shocked

Post it or leave it, but don´t announce something like that. >ou don´t seem to be willing to post/share/point to the source. It´s the same bull# like pretending you know more than others but don´t tell. Bring it or leave it, otherwise it´s hot air.

wmd,you do not need a degree in engineering, common sense is all what it takes. So if the floor trusses slip out of their ankering, then the picture of the falling towers would have been very different. Definitively it does not explain the speed in which the towers fell. Even if the fuel went down in elevator shafts it would start burning the towers but not make them explode. An WTC7 expoded because the towers exploded in vicinity?? Even if you construct much smaller buildings there are a LOT of rules and regulations regarding fire and they have been in place for a long time. If jet fuel burns it burns but does not explode.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I have posted to show that the claims regarding the plane impacts at 9/11 from the truther side are wrong. A smaller lighter aircraft with an impact speed of approx 200mph weighing less than a tenth of the weight of the 9/11 planes replicated many of the events of 9/11. Debris passed through the building, fires spread over many floors even with a fraction of the fuel, material falling down lift shafts the impact mistaken for a bomb by some in the building you on the other hand have just bumped your gums like many on your side no counter evidence just rhetoric.

a reply to: AlbanArthur

Yes, you're right, they did hold some of the load, my comment wasn't completely accurate.

My point was that the way the buildings were designed, the core could hold up the building on it's own, without the perimeter wall.

a reply to: verschickter

Thats for another thread patience.

a reply to: kreidebrei

Exploded want to explain upper wall panels overtaking the collapse front of the tower then, I can't wait to hear this .

At the time the towers were designed thermal loading due to fire was not looked at in depth like say wind loads assumptions were made and fire protection added that all changed after 9/11.

a reply to: Chadwickus

The core was designed to take the bulk of the dead load the wall the wind load the floor slabs tied the system together.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I have posted to show that the claims regarding the plane impacts at 9/11 from the truther side are wrong. A smaller lighter aircraft with an impact speed of approx 200mph weighing less than a tenth of the weight of the 9/11 planes replicated many of the events of 9/11. Debris passed through the building, fires spread over many floors even with a fraction of the fuel, material falling down lift shafts the impact mistaken for a bomb by some in the building you on the other hand have just bumped your gums like many on your side no counter evidence just rhetoric.

I think your wasting your time when people question if there is any relevance between a sky scraper hit by a plane and another sky scraper hit by a plane. You not going to change there mind using science and engineering if they understtod these things they would know why the building collapsed. There is a relationship between mass and velocity that many here just will not understand. the equation is simple E2 = (m c2)2 = (m0c2)2 + (pc)2 however even the engineering dept in my college asked for help from my department because physics explains many of the things that occurred. In a building collapse energy is transferred engineers see it as load physicist see it as energy. When you look at it from that point of view and realize energy needs to be transferred somewhere the collapse was inevitable.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Thanks for all your hard work. Sorry people basically say you suck to try to discredit you, but runaway from any intellectual debate. It roots out those that take the conspiracy theories on faith, and have no interest using intellectual debate to get to the truth.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I have posted to show that the claims regarding the plane impacts at 9/11 from the truther side are wrong. A smaller lighter aircraft with an impact speed of approx 200mph weighing less than a tenth of the weight of the 9/11 planes replicated many of the events of 9/11. Debris passed through the building, fires spread over many floors even with a fraction of the fuel, material falling down lift shafts the impact mistaken for a bomb by some in the building you on the other hand have just bumped your gums like many on your side no counter evidence just rhetoric.

You strike me as someone grasping for reasoning hence the null & void comparisons of The Empire State building and WTC and the disrespectful attitude to those of different opinion. And I'd rather pay attention and bump my gums as opposed to write invalid gibberish and attach a truth label.

Common sense to me says that the only collapse should have occurred from point of impact upward, and to be expected to believe that jet fuel (that which didn't burn up on impact) somehow miraculously made it down to ground level, where there it somehow magically ignited to such a degree, it managed to melt the base in almost perfect uniformity in order to initiate collapse, not just once but twice, is ludicrous.

In the words of Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

I think someone who actually worked on the buildings has slightly more credibility than you

a reply to: neutronflux
The intellectual debate, was foiled with his attitude. Just because one dares to say something about that, does not mean he thinks the building was brought down with explosives. Anyone who has a little idea about physics knows that for example the argument "but why would the other floors collapse, they were holding the load all the time" is factual wrong because there is stored energy in terms of the energy that was needed to pull that stuff up. If you take an apple from the floor and put it on the table, you stored that energy. The gravity is pulling on the apple and the desk can be seen as pushing it up, so it stays there. If you pull that table away, the stored energy is released while the apple accelerates down.

So, don´t be so close minded and jump to conclusions about people so fast. The world is not black and white, gladly.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Common sense to me says that the only collapse should have occurred from point of impact upward..

Sorry to say that your wrong with that but I agree on the attitude part of course. See my post above this one. When the first floor started to come down, the stored energy of all those floors above the breaking point in the building was released when they started to accelerate downwards.

The easiest explanation is, that there was energy used to bring that stuff up to those levels above the ground. It´s the same principle a pump-water plant uses. On times there is too much energy because you have a baseload that is served by nuclear and coal power plants, you use that energy to pump the water up so you can use it later when you need it. This happens at night and might be released midday, when everyone turns on their electric stoves and appliances.

a reply to: verschickter

Well, as I said previously, I doubt we'll ever know what really happened on 9/11, I just don't believe what we're told happened. So many unanswered questions to an event which changed history

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: neutronflux
The intellectual debate, was foiled with his attitude. Just because one dares to say something about that, does not mean he thinks the building was brought down with explosives. Anyone who has a little idea about physics knows that for example the argument "but why would the other floors collapse, they were holding the load all the time" is factual wrong because there is stored energy in terms of the energy that was needed to pull that stuff up. If you take an apple from the floor and put it on the table, you stored that energy. The gravity is pulling on the apple and the desk can be seen as pushing it up, so it stays there. If you pull that table away, the stored energy is released while the apple accelerates down.

So, don´t be so close minded and jump to conclusions about people so fast. The world is not black and white, gladly.

Ypur right its all about stored energy not to mention energy that wasn't accounted for such as the weight of the plane. And then there is the heat caused by burning jet fuel it has to go somewhere in the building. And depending on where the fire was can cause areas to become much hotter than normal jet fuel will burn. And if molten aluminum from the jet made it to the basement I could see a huge problem just from a chemistry standpoint as well. When aluminum melts its highly volatile even sprinklers could have caused a huge problem

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Want to show exactly were I claimed jet fuel melted steel in thr basement please show everyone were I actually claimed that as for a quick indication to others re loads etc on mobile just now will post a link later. If a 747 at take off speed about 92 ms hits a 1kg bird heading the other way what load do you think that bag if flesh and bone could generate. the answer is sround 4.2 TONS

NOW imagine the Tower is the 747 the plane is a 180 + ton bird hitting at 500 mph now IMAGINE the force generated

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Want to show exactly were I claimed jet fuel melted steel in thr basement please show everyone were I actually claimed that as for a quick indication to others re loads etc on mobile just now will post a link later. If a 747 at take off speed about 92 ms hits a 1kg bird heading the other way what load do you think that bag if flesh and bone could generate. the answer is sround 4.2 TONS

NOW imagine the Tower is the 747 the plane is a 180 + ton bird hitting at 500 mph now IMAGINE the force generated

Can I just clarify here, are you trying to say that it was the impacts alone that brought down the towers?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

No but it was great enough to cause structural damaged the fires weakened the steel enough to fail under load the the DYNAMIC load on the floor below made that fail repeat the process and the towers ripped themselves apart .

I will post links later to fire test data and other info later.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

No but it was great enough to cause structural damaged the fires weakened the steel enough to fail under load the the DYNAMIC load on the floor below made that fail repeat the process and the towers ripped themselves apart .

I will post links later to fire test data and other info later.

You know, every time I've seen the towers fall, and it's a lot, I could swear they're falling from the base (both of them). On top of the fact I know smoke was reported at the base, as well as explosions by witnesses, this is FACT, and to the best of my knowledge, there has still never been satisfactory explanations for this.

The NIST explanation, which is basically what you're trying to sell here, expects us to believe that the exact same thing occurred in both buildings, making this the first time in history that steel structured buildings collapsed through fire (twice), with the damage causing the additional cut water supply to WTC7, which is cited as the failure to put out the fires there (there's a third time in history on the same day). It smacks of convenience and doesn't even consider witness testimony

Your thoughts on John Skilling's comments?