What exactly is the problem with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Challenging and questioning authority is a really good thing. Proving they are incorrect and that you are correct takes some effort. You have ideas, assertions, data and education. Why not prove your point scientifically once and for all?

Have we not been over the laws of physics thing already? This is not about psychology either. This is about the science involved in a systemic failure of a massive structure.

Where did you find this science involved in a systemic failure of a massive structure?

Where can you find an Official Source specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? How do you claim it is science without information that simple. I say the conservation of momentum alone makes a less than 11 second collapse IMPOSSIBLE. But we can't do a truly accurate simulation of that without the distribution of mass data. But using the same mass at every level takes too long.

So mostly we just get the HOW DARE YOU QUESTION AUTHORITY argument which is extremely psychological.

How dare you not?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Where did you find this science involved in a systemic failure of a massive structure?

You work it out.

Where can you find an Official Source specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? How do you claim it is science without information that simple. I say the conservation of momentum alone makes a less than 11 second collapse IMPOSSIBLE. But we can't do a truly accurate simulation of that without the distribution of mass data. But using the same mass at every level takes too long.

I don't care for an "official source". There is a problem you feel has not been sufficiently explained. All I'm saying is that you, or someone with similar ideas, needs to take the time to solve the problem.

So mostly we just get the HOW DARE YOU QUESTION AUTHORITY argument which is extremely psychological.

How dare you not?

psik

I've spent more hours than I'd ever wanted to hanging around 911 forums and I can safely say I've never heard anybody ever ask "how dare you question authority" when discussing possible conspiracies. Nor have I ever seen it implied. Most people discussing it are happy to discuss the details, not rely on "authority".

When will someone do the leg work required to lay the science out? I would think if anyone could do it the people of A&E for 911 Truth could, but they haven't. This is a legitimate criticism of their organization whether you're a "truther" or not.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
When will someone do the leg work required to lay the science out?

Dude, the NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the TOTAL amount of concrete in the towers.

But it specifies the total for the steel in three places. In two places it says the distribution of mass must be known for the building in order to analyze the plane impact but then does not provide the data.

Do you need a PhD in physics and a masters degree in structural engineering to figure out that in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up the designers must get the distribution of steel correct and in order for the building to not tip over in 100 mph winds the base had better be pretty damned heavy.

So with all of this SCIENCE that you make a big deal about when have you heard the amount of steel and concrete specified all of the way down to the 6th level basement. People talk about the total weight of the building but when do they specify above ground versus below ground weights. So haw can any science have been said to been applied to this incident without things that simple discussed.

If anything is looks like this is made overly complicated to keep people confused.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Do you need a PhD in physics and a masters degree in structural engineering to figure out that in order for skyscrapers to hold themselves up the designers must get the distribution of steel correct and in order for the building to not tip over in 100 mph winds the base had better be pretty damned heavy.

Wow, maybe you really don't understand how things work. Thats amazing.

Do you really think that the reason the building didn't tip over in 100 mph winds is because the bottom was heavier than the top?

If this "distribution" problem is so absolutley necessary to the final design of any complex structure then you should be able to easily point me in the direction of the some kind of standard engineering form wherein the structural engineers sign and seal an affadavit stating that they have calculated the "distribution" for a particular design and certify that the design is, in accordance to the distribtuion ratio, able to "hold itself up". For any building, please.

Originally posted by hooper
Do you really think that the reason the building didn't tip over in 100 mph winds is because the bottom was heavier than the top?

It is one of the necessary characteristics.

You are of course free to supply the data and supporting evidence for a top heavy skyscraper.

I think people should understand this grade school physics for themselves.

Of course being top heavy would also present the problem of how such a building could support its own weight. The WTC towers were 208 ft wide and 1360 ft tall so a 100 mph wind would put considerable torque on the base of the building.

psik

Well, I have have yet to see any of the defenders of the official story point out where any professional architects' organization says they support NIST's conclusions.

And for everyone whining about the lack of scientific arguments put forth by AE911truth.org, have you even visited their website? Here's one peer-reviewed article on nanothermite right here:
www.bentham.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

reply to post by operatorkos

Here's one peer-reviewed article on nanothermite right here:

Where? All I see is some online pay to publish website. Really, whats the name of the journal where this peer reviewed article was published?