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

reply to post by bsbray11


I never said you should be satisfied with my opinion, but you should at least understand where I'm coming from. The way you people talk it's as if the words coming off my keyboard are poison to your minds. Is it that hard to take an opposing argument? But anyway, that's besides the point.

The argument is always the same:

Truther: Witnesses heard explosions.
Non-Truther: Explosions can be many things, not just explosives.
Truther: You can't argue hearing explosions.
Non-Truther: But most explosions were heard "during" the collapse. It could have been falling material and collapsing building.
Truther: Explosions means demolition!
Non-Truther: In what world do you live?
Truther: You're a disinfo agent!

Truther: They can't collapse a steel-framed building with fire.
Non-Truther: The towers were kind of damaged before they burned... every one of them were damaged.
Truther: Damage don't matter.
Non-Truther: In what world does damage not matter?
Truther: You're a paid disinfo agent!


We're seriously getting absolutely nowhere with these threads. It's a vicious circle, and seriously, we need to stop fighting like LITTLE CHILDREN, and start to work together as if we were adults with a sense in mind to find the truth. If you have an opposition as strong as this, don't you think someone would have a proper idea of something? You can't just chalk down all non-conspirators as 'in on it' or stupid.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343
Figure 20 continues the lashing. I am glad you posted this psy. It's tearing your claims to shread so far.

You do realize that you just shot yourself in the foot with this report, right?

You should definitely not post this report EVER again.

My claims of WHAT? What did I ever claim about the fire?

911research.wtc7.net...

The bottom line is that the fires went much longer than for WTC 2 on steel that was less thick than the south tower because the structure was not nearly as tall and IT STILL DID NOT COLLAPSE.

So you think you can score points on trivia while ignoring the BOTTOM LINE. Endless idiotic debating BULLSH!T.

psik

Nice self-debunking there Psy!! LOL!! Keep posting this stuff!! It's hillarious!! Next you'll post the NIST report to try to support your conclusions!! Guess what there chief??


They don't. Neither does this.

reply to post by JimFetzer


Hey Jim, here are my comments in relation to your website twilightpines.com...

6. I do not find this concerning. It is hard to say exactly what damage happened inside to gradually make its way outside. The resolution of the photo with the fireball is very fuzzy and is lacking a lot of detail due to the video compression. The clearer photo does pick up on a lot more clarity of the damage all around the impact site.

8. I have not calculated the cruising speed at the time of impact from the video and not sure of capabilities of the plane. There are witnesses at the clean up that did find the black boxes, but they quickly disappeared. There is an implication that something is not right, but it is not clear where the error is.

9. There is 200 Ton of aeroplane travelling around 500 mph. The photo presented is very fuzzy and compressed lacking the required detail to clearly see the impact, there are better ones around.

10. The twin towers was made to withstand an aeroplane strike, not deflect it. It is hard to see exactly what damage did occur inside apart from a big hole around the fuselage area. The wings and tail section had an easier path inside the building with the nose weakening the outer shell of the building. It is hard to say just how deep inside these parts went before getting shredded. With their momentum and other structural damage going on as the plane entered the building the processes shown in the many videos is reasonable.

11. The red laser is new. I have seen a video with a green laser as the second plane hit. It may just be someone on the ground with a laser. I have also read some reports that the planes where flown remotely, a laser may have been used to help with targeting, this is just a theory.

12. I know the nose has to be strong enough to withstand birds and other objects, the shape and momentum would have helped push it through the building, this is more of a physics issue. It is good to hear about this from a different camera angel, I would need to see the full video to asses how much damage was sustained on the way through.

53. Just because some some sites where safe to walk on does not mean the whole place was. It does look like a lot of clean up had taken place when the photo was taken. I am not sure of the dates, but some reports say about 2 months until the last of the fires where put out.

54. I have not see this one before about WTC6. On the description is WTC1 suppose to be to the right? It is quite strange in the damage it sustained. The other photos up to 58 just goes to further prove WTC7 was a controlled demolition considering the damage they sustained and remained standing.

61. Evidence of a hydrogen explosion is very interesting.

66. I have not verified the claims of molten steel, there are many reputable sources that this did take place. There would have been a lot of steam. As for steam explosions it does take an air tight pocket to build up pressure. With all the jumbled mess of rubble this would have been difficult to achieve for a significant explosion.

68. I would like to talk to the men on the ground before making an assessment. There is some distance between them and the cloud. Try working in a foundry to see how close you can get to a hot source.

69. Interesting theory. Would there have been enough water in the concrete to pulverise it?

73. You do have a photo of red hot metal surrounded by steam. The case for molten metal is not mythical, it is just a matter of how much.

74. The claws do provide insulation and act as a heat sink to the hydraulics. Need to talk to the men on the ground to see how the machinery held up over time.

75. All the men do look to be wearing protective clothing. Try working in a foundry to see how close you can get to molten steel. I have worked with molten aluminium and you can get pretty close, its not quite as hot as steel though.

76. It is hard to say how deep it all went. The surface temperature would have settled down, but deep underneath any molten liquids would have worked their way further down.

77. The connection between closing all flights and an energy weapon is not clear.

84. Plane do crash into the ground at high speed. But I think you point is about the planes trajectory in how it was coming in on a landing path, not a high angle dive into the ground.

97. I was leaning more towards a missile, but it is still open for debate. My analysis can be found at www.kwakakev.com... . When it comes to the surveillance video, this is one where there has been a lot of fake videos released, so check you source.

109. My theory on flight 93 was that it was shot down. There was some helicopter coverage of this scene at the time on tv. However, it was a very lightly dispersed crash scene, not like the plane flew straight into the ground. There has also been a lot of cover up with the final few minutes of the flight recorder and a lot of contention about the phone calls.

110. I have never seen that photo before and is clearly fake.

113. It is possible that both these stories have some truth to it. I have not looked into it enough.

114. There is a big psy ops campaign going on. Centralisation of the media has made it easier to control www.fair.org... .

You have done a good job putting together a lot of the pieces. It is a tough and hard job with so many different stories and competing ideas around. The facts do matter.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why I asked you what you thought about this Cardington Fire Test is YOU obviously thought it showed that a steel structure cant collapse due to fire.

Did the experiment use a 110 floor building NO!
Did they crash a plane into it NO!
Was a load equivalent to between 16-30 floors of the building dropped on the floors below NO!

So I will ask again what do you think your links show!!!

Here is a nice link for you, slide 9 shows a partial collapse of steelwork (with no plane crash!)
The others slides give data on loads on steelwork due to the fire! (WTC)

www.jcss.ethz.ch...

And what is the signicance of the WTC being 110 story buildings? Are you trying to imply that that made them more vulnerable to fire.

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. That means there had to be ENOUGH STEEL THERE to support another 29 stories. Was the steel in that EXPERIMENT thick and strong enough to support another 29 stories? I don't think so. That structure was only EIGHT STORIES TALL!

The Broadgate building was bigger:

On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen story building in the Broadgate development. [115] The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of 25 million pounds however, only a fraction of the cost (2 million pounds) represented structural frame and floor damage. The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke.

911research.wtc7.net...

There is the little matter of the specific heat of steel combined with the trivial detail of the ability of steel to conduct heat. So the more steel there is and the thicker it is the MORE DIFFICULT it is to be DAMAGED BY FIRE.

www.kentchemistry.com...

So the QUANTITY OF STEEL is going to affect the time it takes to raise the temperature of the steel sufficiently to weaken.

When the aircraft hit the south tower the building deflected FIFTEEN INCHES. That is not a number we hear very much. 150 TONS of aircraft slams into a building at 550 MILES PER HOUR and it moves FIFTEEN INCHES!!! Does that help give us some idea HOW MUCH STEEL was in the vicinty of the impact? But we are supposed to BELIEVE that this steel could weaken and collapse in LESS THAN ONE HOUR?

And yet in NINE YEARS we are not supplied with a table specifying the quantity of steel on every level of the building by any official source. In fact the NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. What does NIST stand for Naturally Incompetent Stupid Technicians?

If this were not so pathetically STUPID it would be HYSTERICALLY FUNNY. And that clown Richard Gage does not even talk about the distribution of steel in the buildings. He doesn't want people to UNDERSTAND why they couldn't collapse. He wants people to BELIEVE because he is a Certified Architect. But the Empire State Building was completed in 1931. What kind of computers did they have in 1931? That building will be 80 years old in a few months. There is nothing intellectually impressive about architecture and structural engineering. 9/11 is just being propagandized by both sides rather than being explained as the grade school physics that it is.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Watch the videos of the collapse of both towers THE FLOORS ABOVE THE IMPACTS drop as one what does that tell you about the steel around the impact area have a good think about that!

South tower hit second collapsed first WHY larger load above impact area !!!!

The experiments YOU linked to did not repeat NOT drop a large load onto the area above the fires thats what happened at 9/11 damaged steel then weakend not melted was hit by a huge DYNAMIC LOAD of the floors above collapsing onto it.

The building was designed to hold itself up against all the normal loads that would be placed on it dead load,live loads wind loads etc but it was not designed to withstand the dynamic loads of the floors dropping watch the video below!!! look at footage at 2:30 onwards.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

There is the little matter of the specific heat of steel combined with the trivial detail of the ability of steel to conduct heat. So the more steel there is and the thicker it is the MORE DIFFICULT it is to be DAMAGED BY FIRE.

www.kentchemistry.com...

So the QUANTITY OF STEEL is going to affect the time it takes to raise the temperature of the steel sufficiently to weaken.

Again, you're still talking about this giant heat sink. IT'S NOT!!

The connections BETWEEN the trusses and the outer/inner columns is what would transfer the heat from the truss to something else. THAT is the key piece in a heat sink.

How much heat energy could these pieces carry per hour?

Do the math there psy. I have.

It's not nearly enough to make a difference. Ie: Negligable.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

There is the little matter of the specific heat of steel combined with the trivial detail of the ability of steel to conduct heat. So the more steel there is and the thicker it is the MORE DIFFICULT it is to be DAMAGED BY FIRE.

www.kentchemistry.com...

So the QUANTITY OF STEEL is going to affect the time it takes to raise the temperature of the steel sufficiently to weaken.

Again, you're still talking about this giant heat sink. IT'S NOT!!

The connections BETWEEN the trusses and the outer/inner columns is what would transfer the heat from the truss to something else. THAT is the key piece in a heat sink.

How much heat energy could these pieces carry per hour?

Do the math there psy. I have.

It's not nearly enough to make a difference. Ie: Negligable.

I am NOT talking about THE TRUSSES!!!

You people trying to convince everyone that collapse was possible try to blame everything on the trusses.

The buildings were held up by THE CORE and the PERIMETER COLUMNS and SPANDRELS. You want people to BELIEVE that sagging trusses could pull them down. Horsesh!t!!!

The fires could not damage THE CORE and the PERIMETER that quickly. Then coincidentally we don't get any data on the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core in NINE YEARS. We aren't told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level. And even Richard Gage and his collection of experts don't discuss it either. They just regale us with Controlled Demolition.

It is just one stupid propaganda war versus another stupid propaganda war when the grade school physics should have been settled in SIX MONTHS. There are THREE different reasons for needing to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the WTC.

First to analyze the impact which the NIST acknowledged.

Second to analyze the speed at which the steel heated to supposedly allow the collapses to occur in LESS THAN ONE HOUR and LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

Then third is analyzing the supposed collapses themselves which happened far too quickly. Conservation momentum alone indicates it could not have been done in less than about 12 seconds. But that cannot be computed accurately without correct distribution of mass data.

So it is curious that LOTS of experts haven't been demanding the info for NINE YEARS?

Haven't been able to build a physical model that can collapse either.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Watch the videos of the collapse of both towers THE FLOORS ABOVE THE IMPACTS drop as one what does that tell you about the steel around the impact area have a good think about that!

South tower hit second collapsed first WHY larger load above impact area !!!!

The experiments YOU linked to did not repeat NOT drop a large load onto the area above the fires thats what happened at 9/11 damaged steel then weakend not melted was hit by a huge DYNAMIC LOAD of the floors above collapsing onto it.

The building was designed to hold itself up against all the normal loads that would be placed on it dead load,live loads wind loads etc but it was not designed to withstand the dynamic loads of the floors dropping watch the video below!!! look at footage at 2:30 onwards.

That is why I make a point of distinguishing FLOORS and LEVELS. By LEVEL I include the columns in the CORE. The core of the north tower came down on the stationary core below. It was not about FLOORS it was about HORIZONTAL BEAMS that we are not given data about.

The south tower is another issue. How did the top 29 stories break loose and tilt 22 degrees. Where did the energy for that come from. The NIST does not even talk about the center of mass of the tilted portion or the center of rotation.

But everything is supposed to be blamed on the FLOORS outside the core. More Horsesh!t!!!

Collapsing core columns and bending horizontal beams would require energy the only source would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass just like in my model. But progressive levels should have absorbed it for the north tower and the top of the south should have fallen down the side. Crushing everything below is an absurdity.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


But the trusses did sag. I have seen video and photographic evidence of an inward bulge in the outer walls of the WTC. That means the trusses were literally pulling them in, and eventually the stress was very simply too much.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But the trusses did sag. I have seen video and photographic evidence of an inward bulge in the outer walls of the WTC. That means the trusses were literally pulling them in, and eventually the stress was very simply too much.

Just because the outer walls bowed in does not necessarily mean it was sagging of trusses due to fire that caused it. The NIST tested 4 floor assemblies with trusses in furnaces at double the expected loads for 2 hours and they only sagged 4 inches. They then should have tested some without fireproofing but they haven't done it.

Why didn't they do that?

Because if they don't fail without fireproofing then they have no excuse left. So now they can claim the planes knocked off the fire proofing and everyone is supposed to BELIEVE.

But that still does not explain the speed of collapse or lack of information about the distribution of steel. There is no video of the core. There is nothing but conjecture about that. So where is the data on the horizontal beams and why should anyone believe anything without that?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I'm not God, so I naturally can't answer all your questions. Will you work together with me and others in learning how to find this information? If it is as important as you say, then a group effort seems paramount to fighting. I honestly don't even know where to begin to develop the info that you're seeking.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I'm not God,

Really?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I'm not God,

Really?

I take it you don't want to find the answer then? I was being serious, not patronizing or sarcastic. Will you be serious now?

Thanks for taking a close look at my Buenos Aires presentation, kwakakev. I will compare your comments with the slides you are discussing and get back with replies. I greatly appreciate your taking the time and effort.

i]reply to post by kwakakev

We may agree on this. I am very skeptical that any of the steel melted. I do not believe it even weakened. But it was destroyed, nevertheless, where much of it appears to have been converted into very fine dust, which, of course, is not surprising, since the buildings themselves were largely turned into very fine dust and that would have been impossible without turning the parts of the buildings into very fine dust. See "New 9/11 Photos Released".

reply to post by Varemia

The alleged plane crashed had nothing to do with the alleged collapses. Most of the jet fuel burned up in those spectacular fireballs. Kerosene burns lower than propane, which does not melt camping stoves when they are used for cooking. The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause any weakening, much less melting. I have not idea what we are seeing in those final slides, but it looks nothing like what happened to the Twin Towers.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Good response. NIST could only get the trusses to sag around 4", which did not cause them to detach. So they fiddled with the data to see how much sag would be required, which was more than 40", and used that. It was a classic case of "GI/GO", "garbage in/garbage out". That's the legacy of the NIST.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I'm not God,

Really?

I take it you don't want to find the answer then? I was being serious, not patronizing or sarcastic. Will you be serious now?

Dude, Newtonian physics is THREE HUNDRED YEARS OLD.

It is 41 years after the Moon landing and the Empire State Building is 80 years old. What kind of computers were used to design the ESB? We are supposed to believe this 9/11 business should not have been solved long ago?

In 2000 I would not have expected physicists to give a damn about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper. We are supposed to believe they can't have figured out the importance of the information in solving the 9/11 problems by now? After NINE YEARS it is not the information that matters it is that the EXPERTS didn't demand it and supply it long ago. How much have computers improved since 2001? If the collapse was possible on the basis of known physics why hasn't a good simulation long since been supplied with complete, accurate and detailed data?

But after NINE YEARS the engineering schools can hardly say they should have solved the problem in SIX MONTHS. What can they do but remain silent and let the confusion maintain itself?

So there is just a propaganda war between the Believers in the 9/11 Religion and the 9/11 Psychosis. The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about Conspiracy Theories. So we should be teaching grade school kids the simple physics they need to understand why a 200 ton airliner should not have been able to TOTALLY OBLITERATE a 400,000+ ton skyscraper in less than TWO HOURS.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I am NOT talking about THE TRUSSES!!!

You should be, as that is where the failure began.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You people trying to convince everyone that collapse was possible try to blame everything on the trusses.

Yep. Do you have another plausable theory? If so, I would love to see it. Maybe you will be the first truther to lay out a complete comprehensive theory. Make sure to list any assumptions and show your math.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The buildings were held up by THE CORE and the PERIMETER COLUMNS and SPANDRELS. You want
people to BELIEVE that sagging trusses could pull them down. Horsesh!t!!!

It can, as has been shown by NIST, and to date, has not been shown to be incorrect. Maybe you'll be the first?

Again, list any assumptions and show your work.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The fires could not damage THE CORE and the PERIMETER that quickly. Then coincidentally we don't get any data on the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core in NINE YEARS.

Have you dont the math on the heat energy of the towers? Not that it matters, as this is a complete strawman.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We aren't told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level. And even Richard Gage and his collection of experts don't discuss it either. They just regale us with Controlled Demolition.

Maybe you could find the original blueprints?

You've ranted and raved about this concrete and steel proportions BS for (as far I can see, many many months) but what have you done to correct this?

I know that AE911T have some of the blueprints. Maybe you could download them and start there?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is just one stupid propaganda war versus another stupid propaganda war when the grade school physics should have been settled in SIX MONTHS. There are THREE different reasons for needing to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the WTC.

I know that AE911T have some of the blueprints. Maybe you could download them and start there?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
First to analyze the impact which the NIST acknowledged.

Ok.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Second to analyze the speed at which the steel heated to supposedly allow the collapses to occur in LESS THAN ONE HOUR and LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

Have you done the heat energy calculations? Have you even STARTED with that? That would be your first step.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then third is analyzing the supposed collapses themselves which happened far too quickly. Conservation momentum alone indicates it could not have been done in less than about 12 seconds. But that cannot be computed accurately without correct distribution of mass data.

Argument from personal incredulity noted, and dismissed.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So it is curious that LOTS of experts haven't been demanding the info for NINE YEARS?

Maybe because the EXPERTS know that you're talking out of your rear.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Haven't been able to build a physical model that can collapse either.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Maybe you should crash something into it, then set it on fire first. You keep forgetting this. Do you also not understand the problem with scaling?

reply to post by FDNY343

Do the math there psy. I have.

Would you care to share this math?