NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm

And where did I say "free fall"?

The same way physicists do. The same way countless people since 9/11 have. Here's some help, for starters:

911myths.com...
911myths.com...

I was answering the bolded question with my question.

The kinetic energy can only get it's energy from the potential energy. mgh. Do you know what that h stands for? That would be the height of the fall. Hence when you tell me to calculate the kinetic energy, you are implying that there was a freefall.

Once it starts to fall, it has fallen because the load can no longer be supported because of failure somewhere, correct or not?

The first significant resistance to the fall - after failure - occurred when? At what point do you consider a fall by the two blocks could be stopped? What does the calculation of kinetic energy tell you about what the structure below needs to resist? Give us a clue.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
It would help you to think before you write something silly.

Well, what is it? Rotational kinetic energy or kinetic energy from falling 6 feet? You might do well to head your own advice.

Read what I wrote. Get back to us when you understand it.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
Yawn.... The actual towers collapsed. Get over it.

Brick walls never seem to amaze me. That's almost as bad as using the Bible to prove the Bible.

The towers weren't made of bricks. And they still fell regardless if models were made that didn't collapse.

DO catch up with what's written before replying next time.

I ment talking to brick walls. Jeez. Again, you might want to head your own advice.

And I meant the towers still fell regardless of the models that didn't fall.

See how easy that was?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
Funny how 9/11 Truthers love to engage in logical fallacies. Did you never take a course in logical and critical thinking?

I've taken many courses. Most involving physics. Half structural. What degree do you posses again? I can deduct it's nothing in the engineering or scientific fields.

Did you never take a course in logical and critical thinking?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
Well, isn't that interesting? To think that we allowed all that time, effort, manpower, and MONEY to be wasted on the most massive investigations ever when one could have simply looked up the answer on Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is still good for most things.

Including taking the place of NIST, ASCE, and FEMA?

Remarkable.

And where do you get the idea that it was the "most massive investigation ever"? There was more money spent on Clinton's blow job. There was more money, time and investigation into the space shuttles.

Show me the hundreds of structural engineers, forensic scientists, architects, physicists, and chemists that investigated Clinton's escapade.

What a fantasy world we must live in.

I think you've adequately demonstrated that only you and 9/11 Truthers live in a fantasy world.

We in the REAL world is having a good laugh, however.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
You have a wilder imagination than I thought. You need to read more carefully.

Hmm...what seems more logical?

A. We all have a reading comprehension problem.

B. You are not making sense and have no clue about physics other than what 911myths tells you.

9/11 Myths told me nothing.

It's remarkable how confused you are.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
And you want to continue to claim that it is necessary to model the collapses to ascertain why they collapsed?

How else would you go about it? Guessing? Seems like that would be sufficient for you. Not me though since I like to know how things work. Not just that they work.

Let the record show you are evading the question.

Demonstrate that the actual collapses, after collapse initiation, have to be modeled to ascertain the cause of the collapses.

Thank you in advance.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


The claim that it is somehow impossible to model the collapse on a computer is absurd!

Regardless, it fails to address the fact that NIST only switched to shady computer models after the physical models failed to show the desired results.

Why dont you ask him about that? The fact that the physical scale models withstood conditions worse than on 9/11 for a longer duration of time? And why they didn't even achieve localized failures or any significant deformation of the steel?

I'm sure he can come up with an equally long winded and roundabout excuse, intimately focusing on the most mundane of irrelevant details to distract the reader from the fact that it contains nothing of substance.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by seanm
You have a wilder imagination than I thought. You need to read more carefully.

I'm reading more carefully than you understand. You don't know what you're talking about. Griff knows the same thing and there are other people here with technical backgrounds that you're not fooling, either.

Sorry to disappoint you. I know what I am talking about.

I didn't think Griff would have to point out for a second time that KE is determined from PE, and PE is equal to mass, times the pure acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2, at which ONLY objects in a vacuum will fall), times height. There is NO variable in that equation to express the electromagnetic resistance preventing two solid objects from falling through each other.

That's special. Perhaps you'd want to read what I wrote, not what is claimed I wrote.

In other words, there is nothing equivalent to a "drag coefficient", which has to be taken into account even for the gases in the air, as they produce friction and drag when you move against them. By referencing the KE you implicitly assume a free-fall somewhere in there. I'm telling you, the subject is deformations of a single rigid body with many components, not collisions between two big, simple objects after one falls through the air.

You can posit something that you think didn't happen all you want but it leaves you outside what the evidence is.

Collapse initiation in both WTC 1 and 2 occurred at the points of impact, after substantial fires had burned, and in each case the top portions of the buildings fell first before the rest of each structure below those two "blocks" began to fall.

If you deny that, then you need to catch up before rejoining the conversation.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
I think the problem is your understanding of what facts are.

How many times do I need to tell you we need the construction documents. Find me those and I'll get you your answer. Until then, give this argument up please. It's not working.

Imagine that Griff claims we need the construction documents before a forensic investigation can determine anything.

Talk about "brick walls!"

Griff, I'd recommend educating yourself before posting.

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by seanm

Now, I'm sure you would want to claim that our computers of today, 43 years later, must be able to model the collapses, right?

Sure its possible,..."

Please demonstrate.


[edit on 19-10-2007 by seanm]

[edit on 19-10-2007 by seanm]

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

The claim that it is somehow impossible to model the collapse on a computer is absurd!

I think you must realize that we are tired of such assertions. Please provide the necessary evidence to support your claims.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by seanm
Griff, I'd recommend educating yourself before posting.

I'm not going to go round and round with you in your little pissing match. Have fun in your fantasy world. I'm done with you.

Maybe if I read something of intelligence from you, I'll respond, but until then you're on your own. I don't have the time for you.

Please read the following from NIST.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Imagine that Griff claims we need the construction documents before a forensic investigation can determine anything.

Talk about "brick walls!"

Griff, I'd recommend educating yourself before posting.

The forensic investigations were not open to the public or the media. I don't think they can really be used as evidence when the people in charge of investigators are the very same people we are accusing. Does that make sense to you seanm?

[edit on 20-10-2007 by drannno]

Originally posted by drannno

Imagine that Griff claims we need the construction documents before a forensic investigation can determine anything.

Talk about "brick walls!"

Griff, I'd recommend educating yourself before posting.

The forensic investigations were not open to the public or the media. I don't think they can really be used as evidence when the people in charge of investigators are the very same people we are accusing. Does that make sense to you seanm?

It's actually very funny given the numerous public comment hearings and the fact that the evidence, methodologies, conclusions are open to the entire world, including every structural engineer, forensic scientist, and architect in the world.

You guys never bother to think before writing.

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

The claim that it is somehow impossible to model the collapse on a computer is absurd!

Spoon, thank yo ufor your "opinion"....but please back it up with facts

Originally posted by seanm
Imagine that Griff claims we need the construction documents before a forensic investigation can determine anything.

Talk about "brick walls!"

Griff, I'd recommend educating yourself before posting.

Just one thing before I leave you to your delusions. What forensic investigation? Give me the proof of that forensic investigation. Who tested the steel for anything? As far as I know FEMA (I think) were the only ones who tested the steel for anything other than temperature. NIST even admits it. So, I suggest educating yourself before you start telling others to.

Good day to you and I'm done.

p.s. FEMA found some pretty interesting things about the steel but no one decided to test it anymore. That makes sense.

Originally posted by seanm
It's actually very funny given the numerous public comment hearings and the fact that the evidence, methodologies, conclusions are open to the entire world, including every structural engineer, forensic scientist, and architect in the world.

You guys never bother to think before writing.

I know I promised myself but. Get me this evidence and such you claim. I'll send you my address in a U2U even, if you claim to have access to such evidence.

I am a structural engineer. I should have access to the construction documents right? Well, it's time to "put up or shut up" so they say.

You are spreading lies in this forum and I actually think it calls for a post ban at least.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

The claim that it is somehow impossible to model the collapse on a computer is absurd!

Spoon, thank yo ufor your "opinion"....but please back it up with facts

The fact that we somehow can't model the towers in real life is absurd. How's that CO? EVERYTHING in engineering, construction etc. is modeled in real life.

Hell, we could even simulate the vibrations caused to the structure from plane collision. My opinion of course, but if we can set water on fire with radio waves, I'm sure we could simulate that.

That brings up something also. An earthquake creates vibration. If a building's natural vibration is close to the earthquake's, there is what is known as resonance. It actually amplifies the damage. I believe they should have at least thought about this when doing their tests but that's just me.

p.s. See, I am willing to think of other alternatives than explosives.

[edit on 10/20/2007 by Griff]