An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Before the collapse of the Architecture building at the University of Delft explosions were reported.

I guess Dick Cheney really hates Dutch architects

Or it's just possible that enormous, failing skyscarpers sometimes emit loud noises.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The simple fact is that there weren't any explosions to record because there weren't any explosions. Explosions would've been easily discernible both visually and audibly by any of the camcorders of whatever quality level that were in the area that day.

Another person 10 years behind the times.

Which do you want first: YouTube videos of explosions, or scores of eyewitness testimonies of explosions?

bsbray11,

Given the number of recording devices focused on the WTCs before they collapsed, it really should be a cake walk for you to find a video (a non-doctored one that is because some excitable 'truthers' have previously faked-up clips with added SFX) that proves your point. The volume of explosives that would be required to bring down the WTCs would have been easily discernible. The microphone on even the cheapest consumer camcorder has quite sufficient fidelity to have recorded such a sound were it to have actually been there to be recorded.

This attachment by 'truthers' to hushaboom explosives and space beams as requirements for them to explain the WTCs' collapse is sad really

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So compute a different initial velocity for the building from the data you have, i don't give a damn.

psik

It's moot! It's a goalpost move on your part! Unless the WTC was moving at anything approaching the speed of the airliners, the wind speed is a meaningless attempt at a handwave distraction.

It has about as much to do with anything as the colour of underwear I was wearing that day (that is to say, nothing at all)

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I have seen a weather report for that day. The wind speed varied around 10 mph with 20 mph gusts.

You sure about that?

From the data that I have seen, it was not even half that.

So compute a different initial velocity for the building from the data you have, i don't give a damn.

psik

Does the velocity of the building matter much when the planes KE is over a billion joules?

reply to post by FDNY343

Does the velocity of the building matter much when the planes KE is over a billion joules?

No, not really. Its kind of like knowing what the temperature in Hiroshima was before they dropped the bomb in order to determine the extent of the damage.

PSI is trying to make the argument that most of the energy of the crashing plane was expressed in the building's oscillation and the remaining energy was not sufficient to incur enough structural damage to initiated the collapse.

His problem, and the problem of so many of the other conspira-scientist is that they like to throw around words like "physics" and "Newton's Law" as if those word magic incantations, ignoring the fact that impact was a very, very complex event that can't be expressed in simple formulas like "plane = A", "velocity = B" and "building = C".

reply to post by hooper


Good analogy, Hooper. The other point that the 'truthers' seem to be ducking is that the KE of the planes were concentrated in one rather small (compared to the overall size of the WTCs) point of the buildings.

Fitz

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Does the velocity of the building matter much when the planes KE is over a billion joules?

No, not really. Its kind of like knowing what the temperature in Hiroshima was before they dropped the bomb in order to determine the extent of the damage.

PSI is trying to make the argument that most of the energy of the crashing plane was expressed in the building's oscillation and the remaining energy was not sufficient to incur enough structural damage to initiated the collapse.

His problem, and the problem of so many of the other conspira-scientist is that they like to throw around words like "physics" and "Newton's Law" as if those word magic incantations, ignoring the fact that impact was a very, very complex event that can't be expressed in simple formulas like "plane = A", "velocity = B" and "building = C".

ROFL

PSI is not trying to do anything of the kind.

But I notice you are not saying my calculations are incorrect or invalid. LOL

The problem is lack of the most relevant information about "building = C".

The deflection of the building and the structural damage are almost separate issues. Because the Kinetic Energy is proportional to the square of the 550 mph velocity it yields a very large and impressive number. But how that energy affects the building largely depends on the QUANTITY OF STEEL which affects the THICKNESS OF THE STEEL. So talking about how much structural damage can be done without talking the Quantity of Steel is COMPLETE NONSENSE.

If this issue had really been about Newtonian Physics it would have been settled within SIX MONTHS of 9/11. But since then people have being playing psychological bull# debating games and do not want everyone to understand the grade school physics.

But I get accused of being OBSESSED with the tons of steel and concrete when in every skyscraper the concrete must be held up by the steel and the distributions of steel and concrete had to be determined in the early 60s. So it is almost funny that the nation that put men on the Moon in 1969 can't provide that data to the entire world but expects everyone to BELIEVE that an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could TOTALLY OBLITERATE a skyscraper weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than TWO HOURS. And then they want to talk about EDUCATING CHILDREN so they can compete aginst other nations economically in the future.

We have had nine years of rhetorical bull# thrown at people that need to be kept ignorant of Newtonian Physics.

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

psik

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
reply to post by hooper

 

Good analogy, Hooper. The other point that the 'truthers' seem to be ducking is that the KE of the planes were concentrated in one rather small (compared to the overall size of the WTCs) point of the buildings.

Fitz

ROFLMAO

Analogies are useful as aids to understanding but they are always limited and if people don't learn to think beyond mere analogies then they do not understand the subject. The analogy is nothing but a crutch providing a delusion of understanding.

The steel and concrete had to be properly distributed in "building= C" in order for it to constantly withstand gravity and intermittently withstand the sheer forces of high winds. The building did not need to be designed to withstand airliners in order for it to be IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do as much damage as we saw on 9/11.

The so called collapse should not have even started.

The way the top of the south tower tilted and rotated so that the bottom moved 20 feet horizontally in a few seconds is the greatest proof that some other source of energy was involved. The building only moved FIFTEEN INCHES when the plane hit. How could fire and gravity cause it to move 20 feet horizontally after breaking in two?

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

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

....BELIEVE that an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could TOTALLY OBLITERATE a skyscraper weighing more than 400,000 TONS

Yeah, thats it in a nutshell. You keep thinking that the plane obliterated the building. It didn't. The building obliterated itself, once critical members of the system were compromised. Its pretty simple once you understand how things work.

You keep insisting that this distribution ratio is hypercritical to the design of any structure. I would assume then that you can find these calculations for some other structure, as according to you they MUST be complete by the designers in order to determine if the building will stand up. So why don't you find some ratio calculations then and get back to us.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The answer to your question about the twenty feet move is due to weight distribution. There was more weight in one direction and it collapsed that section downward, causing a tilt and initiating a global collapse. You can keep imagining that a collapse shouldn't have happened, but the fact is that the horizontal supports were not meant to endure vertical strain.

C (Building) = 1,570,132 cubic feet of concrete (107,000 Ton) www.csi911.info...
+ 192,000,000 lbs of steel (87,000 Ton) www.dailypaul.com...



Total Mass of building = 194,000 Ton (Approx )


There is a lot of variation around for the mass of the towers, about 500, 000 Ton sounds like the average accepted figure 911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The way the top of the south tower tilted and rotated so that the bottom moved 20 feet horizontally in a few seconds is the greatest proof that some other source of energy was involved. The building only moved FIFTEEN INCHES when the plane hit. How could fire and gravity cause it to move 20 feet horizontally after breaking in two?

psikeyhackr,

Allow me to introduce you to a little-known force you seem unfamiliar with. It's called gravity. Allow me to introduce you to another concept that it seems you're likewise unfamiliar with. It's called a fulcrum. Any other concepts you don't understand? Glad to be of assistance.

Fitz

Originally posted by kwakakev
C (Building) = 1,570,132 cubic feet of concrete (107,000 Ton) www.csi911.info...
+ 192,000,000 lbs of steel (87,000 Ton) www.dailypaul.com...

edit on 16-2-2011 by kwakakev because: added 'building'

edit on 16-2-2011 by kwakakev because: converted lbs to ton

Total Mass of building = 194,000 Ton (Approx )

edit on 16-2-2011 by kwakakev because: converted concrete to ton and put in total

110 floors, 206 ft. square (206 x 206 = 42,436 sq. ft.)
Each floor 4 inch thick concrete. (1/3 of a ft.) 110/3 = 37
42,436 x 37 = 1,570,132 cubic feet of concrete.

JEEZUS H. CHRIST!!!

Do people think to check # worth a DAMN.

Do you notice that that calculation does not even allow for holes for the elevators to go through the concrete slab?

How dumb is that?

The concrete slabs OUTSIDE OF THE CORE were poured on CORRUGATED pans. The thickness varied from 4 to 5 inches. I have seen pictures of the edge. I use 4.33 inches for the thickness.

The concrete slabs in the core outside of the elevators were 5 inches thick of the heavy 150 lb/cubic foot concrete. The slabs outside the core were the 110 lb light weight type.

You have to subtract the dimensions of the core from that 206 by 206 to do correct calculations so that site is all wet.

Have you ever heard of the MECHANICAL FLOORS also known as the TECHNICAL FLOORS. All 110 floors of the ABOVE GROUND WTC were not the same. Actually only EIGHTY FOUR floors of the WTC followed that standard modular design.

Now if you search around you will find many sites that say this:

Building the World Trade Center took 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, 600,000 square feet of glass, and 12,000 miles of electric cables.

During peak construction periods, 3,500 people worked at the site. A total of 10,000 people worked on the towers; 60 died during its construction.

Those figures give 100,000 tons of steel and more than 300,000 tons of concrete per tower. That doesn't count, plumbing, electrical, glass, and furniture, computers and people.

How much of that concrete was in the SIX LEVELS of basements? I have never seen above versus below ground mass specified. That is another peculiar thing about this entire business. And then people do Potential Energy calculation on total mass like it was all above ground.

Think about how a foundation needs to be constructed so a 400,000 TON mass can sway in the wind.

Didn't even allow for holes for the elevators. HOW STUPID CAN THEY GET???

psik

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The way the top of the south tower tilted and rotated so that the bottom moved 20 feet horizontally in a few seconds is the greatest proof that some other source of energy was involved. The building only moved FIFTEEN INCHES when the plane hit. How could fire and gravity cause it to move 20 feet horizontally after breaking in two?

psikeyhackr,

Allow me to introduce you to a little-known force you seem unfamiliar with. It's called gravity. Allow me to introduce you to another concept that it seems you're likewise unfamiliar with. It's called a fulcrum. Any other concepts you don't understand? Glad to be of assistance.

Fitz

So why don't you find where the top of the building rotated around?

Don't worry, someone already did it.

www.youtube.com...

How could the fulcrum be at the 89th floor? All you have to do is watch videos of the movement and it is obvious you are talking nonsense.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Did you subtract the volume of the re-bar from the volume of the concrete?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Did you subtract the volume of the re-bar from the volume of the concrete?

Where did I compute the volume of the concrete and what do you care?

Is that more important than leaving holes for the elevators? ROFLMAO

psik

Seriously, where is the information on this thread going? I'm seeing people throwing figures at the wall and a lot of disrespectful retorts.

I suggest we find a way to get back on course and remain civil and respectable. That goes for both sides of the fence.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The answer to your question about the twenty feet move is due to weight distribution. There was more weight in one direction and it collapsed that section downward, causing a tilt and initiating a global collapse. You can keep imagining that a collapse shouldn't have happened, but the fact is that the horizontal supports were not meant to endure vertical strain.

Utter rubbish!

That tilt/rotation required some force besides gravity to produce it. But the NIST does not even specify the center of mass of the top portion of the tower.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by pshea38

 

Had a look at the link, ok at the position of the guy with shorts white shirt and a stap on his shoulder look at his position in both pictures the photographer may have zoomed but would be good to get camera lens info or to get exif data to find out if pictures are cropped.

He is on the right side of the picture with the police suv he is central in the other the photographer has moved/zoomed during the pictures no fakery.

I mean if you confused the boat with a bin that shows how you are getting to carried away with your theories to see what is actually in front of you.!!!!!!!

edit on 15-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: looked at link again altered text

i have responded to your post at the end of my thread
If one photograph from 9/11 is faked, why not all?

i look forward to your reply.

pshea

reply to post by pshea38

If one photograph from 9/11 is faked, why not all?

That question is so retarded I am surprised I am wasting my time responding to it

Go back in your hologram.