The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
They don't know the mass of 84 identical components which some say were responsible for the supposed "collapse"?

The components are not identical; columns have to support more at the bottom and are heavier. It is a stepped gradient and I believe that the areas where the planes struck were of constant structure.

Each floor had a configuration that could be modified by the tenant. This was not published except that it was noted that the UPS floor was strengthened to carry significant additional weight. The contents were not generally known so the masses were not generally known.

This data and much other data is not available. Not having it available does not imply a conspiracy. It is unlikely that a simple model will show anything of significance. There is data somewhere stating how far the building recoiled. Maybe that will help you.

There is a graph of the deflection and oscillation of the south towerin the NCSTAR1 report. I already know about it.

Just because they couldbe modified does not mean most of them were. I bet most of the changes were just tenants with multiple floors cutting stairwells.

The building designers had no way of knowing which tenants would modify which floors over the life of the building. So the 84 STANDARD floors must have had a certain weight. So why do we never see it in NINE YAERS?

You are just talking more obfuscating blather. Why haven't the physicists been demanding info on the standard floors? How can the energy that ent into the oscillation be computed without knowing the distribution of mass?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The building designers had no way of knowing which tenants would modify which floors over the life of the building. So the 84 STANDARD floors must have had a certain weight. So why do we never see it in NINE YAERS?

You are just talking more obfuscating blather. Why haven't the physicists been demanding info on the standard floors? How can the energy that ent into the oscillation be computed without knowing the distribution of mass?

Maybe the oscillation was measured. Maybe the weight of individual floors don't matter and demands for such are just more obfuscating blather.
This isn't the simple physics problem that you think it is.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The building designers had no way of knowing which tenants would modify which floors over the life of the building. So the 84 STANDARD floors must have had a certain weight. So why do we never see it in NINE YAERS?

You are just talking more obfuscating blather. Why haven't the physicists been demanding info on the standard floors? How can the energy that ent into the oscillation be computed without knowing the distribution of mass?

Maybe the oscillation was measured. Maybe the weight of individual floors don't matter and demands for such are just more obfuscating blather.
This isn't the simple physics problem that you think it is.

So you advertise the fact that you do not understand damped oscillation.

Been there, done that.

www.youtube.com...

This goes on and on and on because people that don't know what the hell they are talking about keep talking and talking and talking.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So the 84 STANDARD floors must have had a certain weight. So why do we never see it in NINE YAERS?

Because its not relevant unless you are pursuing arcane conspiracy theories that center around the weight of floors.

You are just talking more obfuscating blather.

Are you listening?

Why haven't the physicists been demanding info on the standard floors?

Please choose one of the following:
1) They are all "in on it"
2) They are all stupid, unlike you who are smart.
3) You are wrong.

I am betting that you're not going for #3.

How can the energy that ent into the oscillation be computed without knowing the distribution of mass?

Well, you could estimate. However, nobody really cares how much energy went into casuing the building to oscillate for a variety of reasons not the least of which is they were only able to estimate how much the building did oscillate based on a review of a few of the videos. Also, the fact that it is irrelevant, unless of course as previosuly stated, you are pursuing arcane conspiracy centered around kinetic energy disposal ratios.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So you advertise the fact that you do not understand damped oscillation.

Been there, done that.

This goes on and on and on because people that don't know what the hell they are talking about keep talking and talking and talking.

psik

You believe that you are going to build a model that has some grounds in reality by modeling damped oscillations of a building struck by an airliner travelling in excess of 400 mph. You plan to use Python because you know that you can skip all the difficult stuff and make a simple model that will prove something other than that the building was initially displaced by the impact and oscillated around its new center of gravity.
What can you actually show with such a model other than that you once completed a Physics 101 course?
"This goes on and on and on because people that don't know what the hell they are talking about keep talking and talking and talking."

Originally posted by pteridine
You believe that you are going to build a model that has some grounds in reality by modeling damped oscillations of a building struck by an airliner travelling in excess of 400 mph. You plan to use Python because you know that you can skip all the difficult stuff and make a simple model that will prove something other than that the building was initially displaced by the impact and oscillated around its new center of gravity.
What can you actually show with such a model other than that you once completed a Physics 101 course?
"This goes on and on and on because people that don't know what the hell they are talking about keep talking and talking and talking."

And all you can do is talk.

That model is 4 inches wide. The WTC was 208 feet wide. So my impact mass would have to be doing 1/600th the speed of what hit the WTC to remain in proportion.

But if I used a very small fast object it would not have been visible in the video.

So all YOU can do it TALK to try to convince people that the model is invalid. Your problem with that is that regardless of its similarity to the WTC or lack thereof I showed that changing the mass or its distribution would change the structure's behavior in response to impact. Therefore analyzing an impact against the towers should require distribution of mass information.

All skyscrapers must be designed to with stand the wind. Models of the WTC were tested in wind tunnels with the wind from 16 different directions. That is in the NCSTAR1 report also.

So give us some more blather.

psik

reply to post by dubiousone

Nice diversionary rant, I must say. Since you know so much, let me ask you, what happened to the structural core of the WTC Towers? What brought those massive steel and concrete structures down? I don't for a second believe that the cause could have been the localized kerosene, paper, wood, and plastic fires on the upper floors or the so-called "pancake" collapse scenario.

Gee what happened? Well according to the video, and everyone watching it, it fell. GASP! It collapsed down according to the laws of gravity.

The core was not meant to stand without the exterior columns as much as the exterior columns were not meant to stand on their own without the core or the floors.

Localized fires? Have you seen ANY of the photos of the WTC burning? Or have you been under a rock for the last, oh, 9 years? I ask this seriously cause either A) you have spent way too much time on those lying TM websites, B) you have seen the events and the replays of 9/11 and are purposely trying to deny the facts, or is C) your personal incredulity is blinding you to the facts to the point of near delusion. You had a fully loaded 767 burning inside 10+ floors of an office building that is filled with plenty of flammables. I mean geeze, this wasnt some small grease fire in a chimney chute. This was about 10+ acres of office building burning with a 767 inside. Somehow I cant understand your disconnect from reality.

Pancake scenario? Well it probably wasnt the initializer of the collapse, but those floors sure as hell did have to pancake onto each other once they started to go down. I mean where else would they go? Sideways? Up? Float out from the building in one piece and then gently arrange itself in a nice pattern? Check out this photo that for some reason, never makes it onto your precious truther websites:

There is your proof of floors pancaked together. This is just basic knowledge. Also helpful if you understood the design of the WTC towers and the peculiar behavior of a building like this in collapse. But I doubt you know anything real about the WTC anyways. Except for what they spoon fed you from LC, A&E and Pffft.

Your whole post just seeps and reeks of personal incredulity. Its something nearly 100% of the TM needs to survive and keeps it going. Sorry but in real life, incredulity does nothing to the facts. Just because YOU think something should or shouldnt happen, based on a very limited or NO knowledge of the technical details, does not make it a viable argument against the known facts.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Come Clean
I've always wondered something. If those buildings didn't fall how were they going to put them out? You have two of the world' tallest buildings on fire near the top. There was no way to put those fires out using conventional means.

So I started to wonder if bringing them down was the only choice that could be made.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Come Clean]

It would have taken weeks to plant the explosives required to bring down the WTC towers in the manner that we all witnessed. In fact, it did!

For a quick update but by no means the latest word, try this video:

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by airspoon

 

Wow!! airspoon - thank you so much for coming forward with your feelings on this. As difficult as this last decade must have been for you I truly think you will be better off by facing this incongruence in your feelings and the facts. I will always think of you as a hero and warrior for freedom!

This is a great thread! So much info all in one place, without much speculation, relying on facts - thank you for an intelligent and well-thought and honest debate of what happened.

I do have one opposing statement, as follows:
To your first point, "Four (4) passenger jet airliners took off from their expected places of departure and none of them landed at their expected destinations."

Most of the information alleging that the airplanes took off from their respective airports has been provided by false or likely-involved sources such as NORAD or the inside investigators.
[li] All airports have dozens of video cameras recording every runway, taxiway, the gates, etc but NONE of the four alleged aircraft were recorded on that day.

Thermo Klein - I recognise several of the points that you mentioned above but not the bit about the aircraft not being seen taking off or at the aforementioned airports on the day. Have you a source for this?

(edited to reduce quote size)

[edit on 11-8-2010 by JohnJasper]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by dubiousone

 

Gee what happened? Well according to the video, and everyone watching it, it fell. GASP!

It collapsed down according to the laws of gravity.

The core was not meant to stand without the exterior columns as much as the exterior columns were not meant to stand on their own without the core or the floors.

It was destroyed in a downward sequence but was it according to the laws of gravity.

Skyscrapers must support themselves against gravity and the WTC did that for 28 years. So how could gravity alone make the top ot the north tower destroy SIC TIMES its own height in less than 18 seconds. If it even looks like gravity brought it down that fast then something has to be wrong. Because that much steel can't give up the ghost that easily.

Oh yeah, they don't tell us the tons of steel on every level and the physics people aren't asking.

Curious ain't it?

"The core was not meant to stand without the exterior columns"

Nice wording that. Just because it was not meant to does not mean it couldn't. The purpose of the building was to provide a lot of floor space. The core supported the inner edge of that floor space. The perimeter columns supported the outer edge. But without the perimeter columns and the floors the core could have stood just fine on its own. There would just be no point in having elevators with no place to take people.

psik

Originally posted by vipertech0596
While I do appreciate, and respect the sacrifices the OP has made. I must point out that his beliefs are based on some inaccuracies or....half truths.

The insurance policy....NOT unprecedented, actually, his lenders wanted him to have a much larger policy.

WTC 7...NOT "quite a distance" away, basically across the street, and pictures of WTC1's collapse show 7 being clobbered by debris.

The "independant" investigation...always a misnomer.. Very few people actually say who they felt would be "independant" enough to investigate. Not to mention what resources they would use. Face it, if you are going to complain the government did not spend enough money, then you need to drop your complaining about the investigation not being "independant". Because if it is being funded by the Government, it will not be independant.
...

vipertech0596 - you laid on a nice bit of debunking except for the almost complete lack of sources. If this is from your own research, perhaps you could provide us with your credentials proving your authority on this subject?

It's the fine detail that you overlook that gives away your either ill-informed or intentionally misleading views on 911. Just as the 911 Commission did, you completely dismiss the eye-witness accounts of numerous fire-fighters and other people at the scene whether emergency responders or ordinary citizens.
9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC

Eyewitness Reports Of Explosions Before WTC Collapses

The following is taken from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center.

"As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion."

You completely dismiss the evidence of Barry Jennings who survived explosions within WTC 7 before the other 2 towers fell:


(This applies to your later post as well where you dismiss several other "facts" without a hint of a source.)

If you're truly interested in the truth, perhaps you should complete the required reading first and then get involved in the argument. As has already been said, we don't have to prove how it happened. We just had to prove that the official story was correct and that has been done several times over. It's time for a true investigation into 911!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mark-in-dallas

 

Since this thread is about FACTS..."what we know"...(and what we don't know), there are a few things that MUST be addressed, in this post. Incorrect things that, unfortunately, keep being presented as "facts", and clouding the entire issue. AND, perpetuating the mistaken "conspiracy" nonsense, and interferring with the REAL search, for the incompetents involved. This is disinformation spewed from a variety of "conspiracy-minded" websites:
...

Come on, weedwhacker! You made a lot of bold statements in your thread but only provided one source link. Your extensive research must have included either web or hardcopy sources that would back up your assertions.

Yes there is a lot of disinformation rubbish being hawked by various people and websites and if I were going to specifically mention any of them, I'd provide sources to prove my point. Otherwise readers would just write me off as being full of hot air!

No sources, no credibility. Dem's the rules.

(edited to fix reply to link)

[edit on 11-8-2010 by JohnJasper]

Originally posted by GenRadek
You had a fully loaded 767 burning inside 10+ floors of an office building that is filled with plenty of flammables. I mean geeze, this wasnt some small grease fire in a chimney chute. This was about 10+ acres of office building burning with a 767 inside. Somehow I cant understand your disconnect from reality.

It is amazing how often the OCT believers use that "fully loaded" term like that is supposed to impress people.

What does FULLY LOADED mean?

The fuel capacity of the plane was 25,000 gallons. We are told that it had 10,000 gallons when it impacted the tower.

IS THAT FULLY LOADED?

It FORTY PERCENT loaded with fuel

And you want to complain about what someone else does not know. ROFLMAO

psik

[edit on 11-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Ah so just because it wasnt fully loaded, that makes it that much less significant? Ok, whatever helps your fantasy of an inside job. Did it have passengers? Did it have luggage? Still even at 40% of fuel inside, that still is a hefty amount of fuel. And irregardless of fully loaded or not, you are still talking about a 767 with fuel, people, luggage impacting a building, with over 10+ acres of office equipment and plenty of flammable stuff. That is insignificant to you? This wasnt some small easy fire. Acres were on fire.

Also, are you or are you not aware of the WTC design? about how the floor trusses connected the exterior and interior columns? Yes the towers are suppose to hold themselves up. That was the purpose of the tube-in-tube design. One needed the others to stand. If the exterior columns came off, that floor is not going to stand up by itself. Its going to come down. What about the interior core? That was not meant to stand alone without the floors or exterior columns. Once the exterior columns fell and the floors themselves came down through the "tube" there was nothing to hold up the core. Large sections of the core did survive for about 15-20 seconds after initial collapse, but eventually the damage and extra stresses overcame the core's ability to keep its structural integrity, and it fell too. Nothing special or sinister about it.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Your "personal incredulity" characterization applies most strongly to you.

Your signature is ironically apropos to everything you post on this subject: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Quincy Adams

Yes. The WTC twin towers fell.
Yes. Gravity was a factor.
Yes. You can see rubble piled on top of other rubble on the ground in layers. This proves nothing about what caused the collapse.

That said, your commitment to the official gospel of 9-11 is impressive.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by dubiousone

 

I see that you, like many others, feel that you should be able to predict the behavior of these structures based on your experience watching disaster movies. The structural integrity depended on both the inner and outer columns. If one was missing the other was unsupported. The inner core had no lateral support and collapsed without the outer columns.

No it's based on engineering experience, understanding of basic physics, and common sense.

An unsupported structure will NOT collapse down on itself through the path of most resistance, and experience no slowing of the collapse wave due to resistance and friction. If something required lateral support to stand it would topple over if that support was lost, not fall through the path of most resistance, itself.

Pray please tell me what movie I watched that would make me think that a global collapse through the path of least resistance is not possible? Do you realise how stupid that idea is? If I had seen that movie it would have been correct wouldn't it? If I had seen a movie where buildings collapsed like the WTC towers then I would have questioned it as impossible.

Originally posted by benoni
I agree with you anok...you see the antenna turn to dust...

How?? Who knows....but one clearly sees it happening on video shot by US TV channels on 9/11...

And the "discredit you tube " excuse is as weak as you could go ......its shot by CNN/CBS etc....the fact that its posted on you tube makes it NO LESS relevant.

Yeah the OSers are in complete denial about this one.

No matter what they say the video is obvious.

Dust settled on an object does not act like that, and how the hell did all that dust settle on vertical columns, especially with all that movement of air around it? The spire should not have collapse straight down at what looks like free-fall.

If the OSers can show where the 'spire' is once the 'dust' appears I'll change my mind. It could not have possibly fell fast enough to appear invisible, yet it disappears seconds into the 'collapse'.

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Your "personal incredulity" characterization applies most strongly to you.

Your signature is ironically apropos to everything you post on this subject: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Quincy Adams

Yes. The WTC twin towers fell.
Yes. Gravity was a factor.
Yes. You can see rubble piled on top of other rubble on the ground in layers. This proves nothing about what caused the collapse.

That said, your commitment to the official gospel of 9-11 is impressive.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by dubiousone]

ah I see.

So your little comment earlier:

I don't for a second believe that the cause could have been the localized kerosene, paper, wood, and plastic fires on the upper floors or the so-called "pancake" collapse scenario.

was what exactly? ah yes, personal incredulity. You do know the definition of it? If so I will not post it for going off topic. What you posted right there is a shining example of personal incredulity. How so? Well easy lets break it down:
"I dont believe for a second"
Well YOU may not believe it for second, but countless of professionals, invesitgators, engineers, fire forensic scientists, architects, etc, came to that conclusion and understand it. They believe it cause they specialize in such matters. And fortunately, I do have the ability to understand the technical nuances of what they reported and their conclusions. It does take something called critical thinking. Just because you don't or can't (or refuse to) understand the results and the reasons why and how the WTC collapsed, does not make the conclusions false. Its up to up you to get up to speed to understand the facts.

"localized kerosene, paper, wood, and plastic fires"

Lets take a good long look at these photos:







I dont believe these are "localized" and therefore insignificant and of no major concern. These are VERY large fires. What else? well in addition to the acres of office supplies burning, there was a 767 inside each building. Did you forget that? That was also burning inside, alongside computers, batteries, carpeting, paper, wood, elevator equipment, jet engines, oxygen tanks, people, jet fuel. Also you may be surprised at just how hot a "regular" office fire can become. Here, read this little artical on office fires and tests done about them:
www.drj.com...

It was a startling sight: Six minutes and 55 seconds after a fire ignited in a wastebasket containing typical office trash, flashover occurred and near-ceiling gas temperatures reached a peak of at least 1,600 F. About 90 seconds later, flames filled the entire room and eventually consumed all of its combustible furnishings.

As if that’s not enough cause for concern, consider that even the most basic construction elements of a high-rise can contribute to overall fire damage. Structural steel rapidly loses strength as its temperature exceeds 1,000 F and localized collapse is likely, making adequate fire protection of such structural elements essential.

Best part? This was written in 1999.
Some more info:
www.doctorfire.com...

So apparently, fires can and do get hot enough to cause damage to steel when unprotected, even if they are "regular office fires". But lets throw in an entire 767 with jet fuel and see what happens. and you say I have a problem with incredulity?

So, once again, nice try to to paint me as the one with the incredulity. Sorry chief, you have shown once again what a majority of the TM does, use personal incredulity as a crutch agianst facts.



[edit on 8/11/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Your dialogue/diatribe with me is based on the false assumption that my conclusions about 9-11 are based on personal incredulity rather than study and critical thinking about the subject. Apparently, you enjoy this game of thrust and parry and seem to intend your comments to apply across the board to most of us who dare disbelieve the offical gospel.

Your inability or unwillingness to recognize the gaps in your position is transparent, yet you fail to see it or, if you do, fail to acknowledge that you see it. If the latter, you're advancing an agenda rather than a search for truth. But, then, when one holds fast to official dogma there's no need to think for oneself.

reply to post by ANOK


Is this the same engineering experience that knows how steel can instantaneously turn into white dust? Please describe your steel-to-white-dust experiences and include the details of the miraculous process.