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

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Then it appears we agree. By intact, I meant it was still standing. We apparently just have different logic in our respective brains as to what that means. I get it, you're angry about the day and you want the math and a new investigation. What can I (and others) do to help acquire what you need?

No we DON'T AGREE.

You don't know what the word INTACT means.

You just make up crap and CLAIM it means what you want.

Here is the definition: untouched especially by anything that harms or diminishes : entire, uninjured
mw1.meriam-webster.com...

If the core was INTACT it would have remained standing. Get a dictionary and learn how to communicate accurately if that is what you intend to do. Otherwise continue advertising your ignorance so I can point it out at every opportunity I find.

psik

Originally posted by ANOK


Didn't I explain this already? NEWTONS 3RD LAW, opposite and equal reactions. IF the top was crushing the bottom then the top would also be crushing itself. 30 floors as a whole block has less mass then 80 floors, and if your upper block is crushing as a whole block then the 80 floors are also acting against it as a whole block. All the floors are connected vertically through the columns, both the upper and lower block.

But once again it didn't happen like this did it? DID IT GEN? let me answer for you, no it didn't. It is quit clear in collapse videos that the top block was tilting in both buildings and collapsing independent of the bottom section.

UNDERLINED ABOVE WRONG!!!!

When the floors DROPPED its the floor below that takes the dynamic load, it is between the falling floors and all the other floors below! THE DYNAMIC load is greater than the load that can take SO IT FAILS!!! that then joins the falling mass which hits the next floor!!! THATS what happens or this could not be done could it. (VIDEO BELOW)

If the same load was just placed gently on top then that would be no problem BUT you have 1000's of tons dropping at least a floor around 12 ft iirc.

Try this out of you dont think I am correct if you can carry say a 100lb weight get someone to drop it into your hands from say a couple of feet see if it seems like 100lbs then!!!




The above demolition COULD not be done if we follow your logic COULD IT

The top few floors would fall then stop after all the floors below have supported the floors above for many years etc etc NOW who on here has claimed that about the Twin Towers.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Why are you so hell-bent on not working together? I WANT to figure this out, and you keep acting like an absolute a-hole about everything.

Now seriously, what can I do to help you get what you need to allow us both to come to a consensus, or will you just yell at me about how I apparently know nothing and should stop spreading my virus of an opinion?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why are you so hell-bent on not working together? I WANT to figure this out, and you keep acting like an absolute a-hole about everything.

Now seriously, what can I do to help you get what you need to allow us both to come to a consensus, or will you just yell at me about how I apparently know nothing and should stop spreading my virus of an opinion?

Consensus is psychological bullsh!t. The problem here is getting people to understand some relatively trivial grade school physics.

If you can't even understand the meaning of INTACT and use it correctly then you can only create a consensus of idiocy.

I am not in the least bit interested in joining you in that state.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why are you so hell-bent on not working together? I WANT to figure this out, and you keep acting like an absolute a-hole about everything.

Now seriously, what can I do to help you get what you need to allow us both to come to a consensus, or will you just yell at me about how I apparently know nothing and should stop spreading my virus of an opinion?

Consensus is psychological bullsh!t. The problem here is getting people to understand some relatively trivial grade school physics.

If you can't even understand the meaning of INTACT and use it correctly then you can only create a consensus of idiocy.

I am not in the least bit interested in joining you in that state.

psik

Where's the math in that post there Psik?

Are you going to provide any of it?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why are you so hell-bent on not working together? I WANT to figure this out, and you keep acting like an absolute a-hole about everything.

Now seriously, what can I do to help you get what you need to allow us both to come to a consensus, or will you just yell at me about how I apparently know nothing and should stop spreading my virus of an opinion?

Consensus is psychological bullsh!t. The problem here is getting people to understand some relatively trivial grade school physics.

If you can't even understand the meaning of INTACT and use it correctly then you can only create a consensus of idiocy.

I am not in the least bit interested in joining you in that state.

psik

Why? Why don't you want to work together? Is your whole point here to yell at people and talk about how smart you think you are?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why are you so hell-bent on not working together? I WANT to figure this out, and you keep acting like an absolute a-hole about everything.

Now seriously, what can I do to help you get what you need to allow us both to come to a consensus, or will you just yell at me about how I apparently know nothing and should stop spreading my virus of an opinion?

Consensus is psychological bullsh!t. The problem here is getting people to understand some relatively trivial grade school physics.

If you can't even understand the meaning of INTACT and use it correctly then you can only create a consensus of idiocy.

I am not in the least bit interested in joining you in that state.

psik

Where's the math in that post there Psik?

Are you going to provide any of it?

Math based on WHAT DATA?

That is one of the most ridiculous things about this entire 9/11 business. Frank Greening has a 32 page paper that is nearly 50% calculus. But on page 3 he divides what he claims is the total weight by 110. That means his calculations are based on the assumption that the weight was the same on all levels.

forums.randi.org...

The building was actually 116 levels because there were 6 basement levels and there had to be lots of concrete in the basements of a 110 story skyscraper that had to sway in 100 mph winds. So all of these mathematical calculations done by people who don't insists on having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the building are CONTRADICTORY STUPIDITY. The complex math implies they are smart but not having correct data to plug into the equations is really dumb. So it really just amounts to supposedly smart people trying to impress and confuse people that know less than they do.

Like the NIST producing a 10,0000 page report that doesn't specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. So how is it they can specify the total for the steel in three places but NEVER do it for the concrete? People on BOTH SIDES of the issue saying what could and could not happen but not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete through the entire structure. LOL

Then nobody can build a physical model that can completely collapse and demonstrate what supposedly did happen on 9/11. Why not? Oh yeah, MIT made a video of a model to show what a missing floor might do but failed to point out that the floors were connected to spandrels that would not collapse with the floor.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Are you sure there was lots of concrete on the basement you seem determined to increase the mass lets see if they are bolted to the ground then the WTC weighed billions of tons as the earth now comes into play!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Are you sure there was lots of concrete on the basement you seem determined to increase the mass lets see if they are bolted to the ground then the WTC weighed billions of tons

as the earth now comes into play!

You can believe sarcasm and ridicule trumps physics all you want.

A 100 mph wind would put a significant amount of torque on a structure 208 feet wide and 1360 feet tall. I haven't heard of anyone ever worrying about the WTC falling over due to the wind. If anything it is extremely curious that we don't know the amount of steel and concrete that were on every level after NINE YEARS.

When has Richard Gage asked about that? There are rumors that he is an architect.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Are you sure there was lots of concrete on the basement you seem determined to increase the mass lets see if they are bolted to the ground then the WTC weighed billions of tons

as the earth now comes into play!

You can believe sarcasm and ridicule trumps physics all you want.

A 100 mph wind would put a significant amount of torque on a structure 208 feet wide and 1360 feet tall. I haven't heard of anyone ever worrying about the WTC falling over due to the wind. If anything it is extremely curious that we don't know the amount of steel and concrete that were on every level after NINE YEARS.

When has Richard Gage asked about that? There are rumors that he is an architect.

psik

CARE tro explain it then if your basement add more mass so would the EARTH using YOUR physics would it not!!!

Oh and by the way I just had a quick look at a few of the drawings for the WTC Towers

Originally posted by wmd_2008
CARE tro explain it then if your basement add more mass so would the EARTH using YOUR physics would it not!!!

Do you actually think that sentence makes sense? I don't know what the hell you are saying.

psik

Originally posted by wmd_2008
When the floors DROPPED its the floor below that takes the dynamic load

WRONG and this is the root of your whole misunderstanding.

Newtons 3rd law EQUAL & OPPOSITE REACTIONS.

Equal, the force on both the colliding objects is EQUAL, the same, NOT different.

OPPOSITE, each colliding object pushes the same EQUALLY in the opposite direction, the falling floors are pushing DOWN, but the static floor is pushing UP with the SAME amount of force.

This is true regardless of whether both objects are moving, or just one is moving, or how fast either object is moving.

If the same load was just placed gently on top then that would be no problem BUT you have 1000's of tons dropping at least a floor around 12 ft iirc.

Hmmmm so what? Read what I just wrote above again. You have 1000's of tons dropping on the lower floor which will also create 1000's of tons of force against it, equal and opposite reactions. IF the floors were not already designed to hold up 1000's of tons then there would be a problem, but you keep ignoring the fact that the floors could hold there own weight many times over, it's called the factor of safety and is a requirement for all buildings.

Try this out of you dont think I am correct if you can carry say a 100lb weight get someone to drop it into your hands from say a couple of feet see if it seems like 100lbs then!!!

That is not a correct analogy for the laws of motion or the WTC collapse. Your hands were not designed to have 1000's of tons of anything on them, dropped or not. A better one would be hands dropping on hands, or a pile of 30 hands dropping on a pile of 80 hands.

You OSers are really bad at physics analogies. Proves what we've been saying all along, the OSers argue on faith not knowledge.

The above demolition COULD not be done if we follow your logic COULD IT

If you watched that vid a bit more closely you will see a big difference between it and the WTC. The point of collapse is in the middle, so if it were the WTC it would be 55 floors dropping on 55 floors, that is enough floors to completely collapse the building. Now one of the WTC towers was 17 floors falling on 93, not going to work is it?
If you understood Newtons 3rd law and the conservation of momentum you would know why. Think about this in context to what I've said just for a minute or two.

BTW you still have to prove a complete floor could symmetrically collapse all at once, as the floors were made up of many independent trusses that would all have to fail equally to have a symmetrical collapse. It would have to fall symmetrically as all the available force would need to be in play to be able to completely cause another floor of equal mass, AND the resistance from the connections to all be overcome. In fact there wouldn't be enough energy to do both imo as once again the mass of the dropping top was not larger than the static block it impacted. To be able to overcome the resistance AND destroy the floor (no floors were left over post collapse so they must have been destroyed) would take more energy than the falling block could supply imo. If you understood correctly the laws of motion this would be clear to you.

Originally posted by ANOK
OPPOSITE, each colliding object pushes the same EQUALLY in the opposite direction, the falling floors are pushing DOWN, but the static floor is pushing UP with the SAME amount of force.

First of all it's ridiculous to even be assuming that the floors fell like flat pans stacking on top of each other, which is the exact opposite of what you see in videos, where in reality concrete dust was flying in all directions, indicating that the floors were being fully destroyed and were not simply stacking.


But ignoring that, you are completely right and I don't think wmd understands what you're trying to show him.

Assuming for the sake of argument that a higher floor (we'll call A) falls onto a lower floor (B) and they stick and continue moving together, the force of one pushing down on the other is in fact 0 as they begin to fall together. That is the equilibrium, the equal-and-opposite being maintained. Once they are considered a single falling body instead of two floors, their momentum, etc. is just summed up and its motion is then described as the sum of two floors. There is still downward motion but there is NO FORCE being exerted between the two floors which are now "pancaked."

Any destroying force would have to come with an initial impact, an impulse of force as each new floor is hit. But once again in reality we see that if and when this happened, it resulted in total destruction that included pulverizing the solid concrete slabs into fine dust that was sent flying in all directions. And the concrete slabs were the only thing on each floor that could even be considered a single solid unit, because all the steel trusses were independent from each other.

Originally posted by ANOK
You have 1000's of tons dropping on the lower floor which will also create 1000's of tons of force against it, equal and opposite reactions. IF the floors were not already designed to hold up 1000's of tons then there would be a problem, but you keep ignoring the fact that the floors could hold there own weight many times over, it's called the factor of safety and is a requirement for all buildings.

Wait, so you believe that one floor of the WTC towers were designed to hold 15 times it's own weight, PLUS the materials from the 15 floors above it? Do you seriously believe that? I think the safety factor for something like that would be in the hundreds, but I could be wrong. Just speculation.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Wait, so you believe that one floor of the WTC towers were designed to hold 15 times it's own weight, PLUS the materials from the 15 floors above it?

Explain to me how exactly 15 floors worth of crap ends up falling together in a big debris pile onto the first floor that allegedly gave way?

You obviously aren't going by the NIST report, so where are you getting all this crap from?

Where else is 15 floors of stuff going to collapse to? The side?

Originally posted by FDNY343
Where else is 15 floors of stuff going to collapse to? The side?

15 floors isn't going to go any damned where unless something happens to it. Which is why I ask you what exactly you think happened to initiate all of this.

Again, if you think all this stuff just up and fell all onto the trusses of a single floor, then you aren't reading the NIST report. According to NIST it wasn't even a "pancake collapse." You have a few years of catching up to do since they shot down that theory themselves. Too bad.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ANOK
OPPOSITE, each colliding object pushes the same EQUALLY in the opposite direction, the falling floors are pushing DOWN, but the static floor is pushing UP with the SAME amount of force.

First of all it's ridiculous to even be assuming that the floors fell like flat pans stacking on top of each other, which is the exact opposite of what you see in videos, where in reality concrete dust was flying in all directions, indicating that the floors were being fully destroyed and were not simply stacking.


But ignoring that, you are completely right and I don't think wmd understands what you're trying to show him.

Assuming for the sake of argument that a higher floor (we'll call A) falls onto a lower floor (B) and they stick and continue moving together, the force of one pushing down on the other is in fact 0 as they begin to fall together. That is the equilibrium, the equal-and-opposite being maintained. Once they are considered a single falling body instead of two floors, their momentum, etc. is just summed up and its motion is then described as the sum of two floors. There is still downward motion but there is NO FORCE being exerted between the two floors which are now "pancaked."

Any destroying force would have to come with an initial impact, an impulse of force as each new floor is hit. But once again in reality we see that if and when this happened, it resulted in total destruction that included pulverizing the solid concrete slabs into fine dust that was sent flying in all directions. And the concrete slabs were the only thing on each floor that could even be considered a single solid unit, because all the steel trusses were independent from each other.

I agree, but the initial impact pulse would effect both falling and impacting floors equally right? Newtons 3rd law. Also I don't think the two floors would start moving down together, there should be enough resistance in the structure for the impacted floor to stop the impacting floor.

BUT, I was going by the OSers claim AND the observed fact that all the floors were destroyed, so if all the floors were destroyed, and it was supposed to have happened by floors falling on floors due to gravity as the OSers claim, then there was not enough floors, because the only time the floors could have been destroyed is when they impacted each other and both floors would be destroyed. Even if it took only half a dropping floor to destroy the impacted floor there still would not be enough dropping floors.

So 17 floors would not be enough for that to happen. The OSers have no other hypotheses as to why all the floors were destroyed.

Yes of course it didn't happen how I describe it but that is what the OSers seem to think happened. Yes the floors were turning to dust, and the top section was collapsing down on itself before the bottom section started to collapse, they were collapsing independent of each other. The whole OS claim is BS, period, The only way it could have happened is the resistance was removed with some energy other than just fire and plane impacts.

I hope that makes my point more clear.

Originally posted by ANOK
I agree, but the initial impact pulse would effect both falling and impacting floors equally right?

Of course, otherwise how would nature decide which one gets damaged and which doesn't? It wouldn't make any sense. They both would experience an impulse.

Also I don't think the two floors would start moving down together, there should be enough resistance in the structure for the impacted floor to stop the impacting floor.

If it was one floor falling onto one floor, right. One of NIST's two WTC FAQs even said each floor could generally withstand something like 4 or 6 floors under dynamic loading (no idea from what height they were assuming or any other geometric/temporal variables), or an even greater number statically. But all of this is irrelevant because even NIST also refuted pancake theory, and said in reality the floors did not come down at all, but the columns began deflecting due to perimeter columns being pulled inward. Then it isn't just all of the weight of the upper block focusing magically onto the weak spot of the building, but a lot more complicated and harder to progress a total collapse than that.

BUT, I was going by the OSers claim AND the observed fact that all the floors were destroyed, so if all the floors were destroyed, and it was supposed to have happened by floors falling on floors due to gravity as the OSers claim, then there was not enough floors, because the only time the floors could have been destroyed is when they impacted each other and both floors would be destroyed.

If this is what someone is arguing, then they should realize they are in disagreement with the very same reports that we are also protesting. At least if they want to defend the government they should get the latest version of their own story first.

I hope that makes my point more clear.

We're both trying to make you more clear, but not for our own sakes I don't think.

Originally posted by bsbray11
If it was one floor falling onto one floor, right. One of NIST's two WTC FAQs even said each floor could generally withstand something like 4 or 6 floors under dynamic loading (no idea from what height they were assuming or any other geometric/temporal variables), or an even greater number statically. But all of this is irrelevant because even NIST also refuted pancake theory, and said in reality the floors did not come down at all, but the columns began deflecting due to perimeter columns being pulled inward. Then it isn't just all of the weight of the upper block focusing magically onto the weak spot of the building, but a lot more complicated and harder to progress a total collapse than that.

I know they refuted the pancake theory, but it's still their hypothesis that floors fell on floors causing them to collapse right? The bowing columns BS was just the collapse initiation.

If this is what someone is arguing, then they should realize they are in disagreement with the very same reports that we are also protesting. At least if they want to defend the government they should get the latest version of their own story first.

Well that is what OSers seem to be arguing from what I have read here. Their continuous claim is that the upper block fell as one whole, and the lower block couldn't hold the falling weight, which I think we both agree it should have with no problem. EVEN if it did it wouldn't be able to continue collapsing through more floors than were in the collapsing block, the top can not stay as one piece while the bottom is crushed, equal opposite reactions. It seems they want to treat the top like a solid block, and the bottom as individual floors, but it doesn't work that way. You have to treat them both as either blocks or both as individual floors when considering the laws acting on them. That top block is not going to put all its force on one floor, it puts the force on the floor PLUS the columns they are attached to, as one block, just like the top is one block of floors attached together by the same columns. So 30 floors falling on 80 won't work. Taken as one floor falling on one floor, ignoring all the other floors, the dropping floor still won't crush the static floor without being crushed itself (and we know all the floors were crushed because there were none left post collapse).

How can anyone not see how it simply doesn't work like the OSers claim?

We're both trying to make you more clear, but not for our own sakes I don't think.

Agreed, it's easy to understand this but it is hard to make someone else understand it. Just showing them the laws doesn't work because they just misunderstand it. For example one OSer thinks conservation of momentum means an object will keep moving regardless of whether it hits something, and gravity can ignore resistance, and that Newtons 3rd law only applies to elastic collisions. I attempt to explain these laws along with how they apply to the WTC collapses but I'm not a teacher, I just try my best lol.