Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

Originally posted by Ben81
Im sure the WTC didnt even move when they were hit by the planes

Recently I heard a very interesting scenario about how the WTC's come down and that a lot of the rumors have some pieces right but in essence the US knew the Towers were going to be brought down, They knew or I should be more specific the Military knew the day they were targeted for destruction and through Global Hawk technology they crashed the Planes into the Towers as the premise for a cover story used to hide the real technology that brought them down regardless of whether anything actually hit them.

Imagine if they just fell on their own and disintegrated into powder without any visible cause ? so the faction in the US Military who are fighting the "Real" enemy moved to make it look like planes crashing into the towers brought them down through fires.

This Enemy is Human and has basically built itself up out of the Military Industrial Complex and its very real, they have threatened the world that they will bring down all the non Compliant Governments with their Hidden Tech. This will include everything and anything they have in their arsenal to enact an Order that is all persuasive and their demonstration of power was 911.

The US has used this so called War on Terror as the premise to fight back, cleverly they built up a storyline that suited their agenda to put US bases all over the Northern Hemisphere. These Bases serve as a platform to repel and expel all who are against the Western Control grid that currently holds the power base on this Planet.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So couldn't the supposed collapse be simulated with the computing power we have now?

Sure, if you have in the area of trillions of man hours, with decades of time and trillions of terrabites of data, sure, you could. But, the problem is that it would have a margin of error close to 100%. There are too many variables to accurately account for.

Hence, why only portions of the collapse were modeled, and not the actual collapse themselves. Hence, you still do not understand the problem with modeling a collapse of this magnitude.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr But wouldn't that require knowing the correct amount of steel and concrete on every level? So why don't any official sources provide that information now.?

I am sure that the NIST had the original blueprints to work from. Hell, AE911T has some of them uploaded to their website. Have you tried there?

Or, better yet, have you tried contacting an engineer of tall buildings and asking them if your question is even relevant? (I'll give you a hint. It's not. I've asked. )

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why bother modeling the fire?

To understand how to prevent such a collapse in the future, to make our fire safety laws better, to understand the ins and outs of a catastrophe of this magnitude. Why wouldn't you?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Just simulate the north tower and completely remove 5 stories below the top 15 stories. That would leave a 60 foot gap and 90 intact stories below. It should take a little less than 2 seconds for the 15 stories to fall and they would impact at 44 mph. If the building does not completely collapse in that simulation then it should not have happened on 9/11.

So, you still don't understand the problem with scale modeling? You also don't understand the problem with trying to model something like this with computers either. Gotcha. Argument from personal ignorance noted.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why haven't any of our engineering schools been able to come up with that in NINE YEARS?



psik

Because it's irrelevant. It's useless. It's a retarded stance.

Have you contacted AE911T to see if they will send you the files you're looking for? How about NIST? PANYNJ? Silverstein Properties? ANYONE???

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So couldn't the supposed collapse be simulated with the computing power we have now?

Sure, if you have in the area of trillions of man hours, with decades of time and trillions of terrabites of data, sure, you could. But, the problem is that it would have a margin of error close to 100%. There are too many variables to accurately account for.

Hence, why only portions of the collapse were modeled, and not the actual collapse themselves. Hence, you still do not understand the problem with modeling a collapse of this magnitude.

I think this simulation demonstrates you are talking UTTER RUBBISH.

www.youtube.com...

All we need to know is if complete collapse is possible or less than 50%. Because if more than 45 stories are still standing then we can be sure that complete collapse was IMPOSSIBLE due to the plane hitting the north tower. It makes no difference if it is 50 or 60 or 55 stories still standing. The precision does not need to be that great, It would certainly have to have the quantity of steel and concrete correct on every level. But after this much time some people must not want this resolved. It would even be an embarrassment to all of the engineering schools.

But it certainly makes for a nice contradiction with all of the talk about education and the need for better science education in this country.

I am sure that the NIST had the original blueprints to work from. Hell, AE911T has some of them uploaded to their website. Have you tried there?

All of this horsesh# about blueprints. The blueprints of the core show where the toilets were. Where were the horizontal beams in the core? How many feet of steel were in all of those beams on each level. I have not seen anything claiming to be the layout of those beams. But clowns keep saying, "look at the blueprints", "look at the blueprints".

Richard Gage and his buddies don't talk about the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers either. He talks about controlled demolition which people get all emotional about but no cold and calculated physics of simple stuff.

So, you still don't understand the problem with scale modeling?

The simulation I described would not be scale modeling. You are talking bullsh#.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I think the information you're obsessed with can be obtained through this link:

www.journalof911studies.com...

It goes over the calculated mass of the tower and even specifically goes on about the differences in steel on a floor-by-floor basis, using various sources and explanations for the concluded numbers. Let me know if it is what you're looking for?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I think the information you're obsessed with can be obtained through this link:

www.journalof911studies.com...

It goes over the calculated mass of the tower and even specifically goes on about the differences in steel on a floor-by-floor basis, using various sources and explanations for the concluded numbers. Let me know if it is what you're looking for?

I already know about Gregory Urich. He does a linear interpolation on the distribution of weight of the exterior wall panels. He has the bottom wall panels weighing 19 tons. But there is an article from 1970 with the panels weighing 22 tons. The trouble is if he does an interpolation with 22 tons his calculations will yield NEGATIVE WEIGHTS at the top of the building. That is slightly IMPOSSIBLE. So he changed the number. The fact of the matter is that the distribution would not have been linear.

So his data is WRONG!

But they have discussed it since I was banned from his site.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Here is the article with the wall panel information.

The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is $21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up.

In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels.

911research.wtc7.net...

So why can't the NIST tell us how many different weights of panels there were, the weight of each type and the quantity of each type? Why should Urich have to do an interpolation? And why is the data from a computer programmer in SWEDEN and not from Official Sources in the United States?

And why don't you geniuses think of demanding such obvious information?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Alright, alright! You don't have to be so flippant every single time you post. I was just trying to be helpful.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So why can't the NIST tell us how many different weights of panels there were, the weight of each type and the quantity of each type?

Well, according to their report they had the shop drawings and the as-builts. Maybe they can, have you asked them? Thats generally the first step, you have to ask.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I think this simulation demonstrates you are talking UTTER RUBBISH.

www.youtube.com...

Is this the complete collapse? Of course not. This is a very small portion of what would be needed to model the collapse.

When you understand FEAs and the like, please feel free to let me know.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
All we need to know is if complete collapse is possible or less than 50%.

No, that is what YOU want to know. Bazant et al. have already shown that there was no way for it not to collapse.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Because if more than 45 stories are still standing then we can be sure that complete collapse was IMPOSSIBLE due to the plane hitting the north tower. It makes no difference if it is 50 or 60 or 55 stories still standing. [B] The precision does not need to be that great, [/B] It would certainly have to have the quantity of steel and concrete correct on every level. But after this much time some people must not want this resolved. It would even be an embarrassment to all of the engineering schools.

Bolding mine.

No, it would need to be fairly accurate, or it would be a tremendous waste of time.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But it certainly makes for a nice contradiction with all of the talk about education and the need for better science education in this country.

And this has what to do with the topic at hand?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
All of this horsesh# about blueprints. The blueprints of the core show where the toilets were. Where were the horizontal beams in the core?

Find the correct drawings.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How many feet of steel were in all of those beams on each level. I have not seen anything claiming to be the layout of those beams. But clowns keep saying, "look at the blueprints", "look at the blueprints".

Yes, look at the correct blueprints.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Richard Gage and his buddies don't talk about the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers either. He talks about controlled demolition which people get all emotional about but no cold and calculated physics of simple stuff.

Maybe it's because your question is ignorant?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The simulation I described would not be scale modeling. You are talking bullsh#.

So, you're talking about trillions of man hours, and many trillions of calculations, and you expect some accuracy there?

That, is bull****.

Have you contacted an engineer to ask your questions to?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I think this simulation demonstrates you are talking UTTER RUBBISH.

www.youtube.com...

Is this the complete collapse? Of course not. This is a very small portion of what would be needed to model the collapse.

When you understand FEAs and the like, please feel free to let me know.

So, you're talking about trillions of man hours, and many trillions of calculations, and you expect some accuracy there?

It wasn't a collapse at all. It was a plane with liquid fuel impacting at 440 mph.

The simulation I proposed was a 10th that velocity, and involved no liquids.

It would require knowing the distributions of steel and concrete but that is the information we never get. The people promoting the belief in nonsense need to exaggerate the complexities to eliminate resolution.

The engineers now have the problem of having let this go on for far too long. How could they admit that it is an easy problem now?

But somehow engineers manged to design and build the Empire State Building without electronic computers and get to the Moon in 1969 but now they can't tell us the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings designed before the Moon landing.

FASCINATING!

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by ANOK


You are correct, you do not have to prove anything, but you also cannot simply say I disagree or do not belive without some type of evidence to support your views. That is what a debate is about, which occurs in these forums. However, it did fit the laws of physics and I explained that in my last, long post which touched on the 3 laws of motion which I asked you to do but could not. I gave my evidence. You did not. Now, again, use the 3 laws of Newton and explain how they did not fit the collapse. Not just ‘part’ of the third. However, I add something about your 3rd law you may be forgetting…

The momentum of the falling structures, (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2 from top to impact zone) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

You see, as it fell, it gained momentum by hitting the lower floors because it was collecting and building mass of the lower floors. This was explained by NIST. They also have evidence that 40-50 stories of each building remained standing for up to a half a minute before also finally collapsing. Nothing pancaked…just like you say in your post. Larger mass always wins. You are right that the third law comes into play but you are not explaining it but I did.

The collapse did not occur because of just Newtons laws as you and other keeps saying but it occurred based on numerous things.
1. Planes hitting with fuel igniting floors.(fact)
2. Planes removing core inner columns. (fact)
3. Fires and damage from impact combined weakened the structure(fact)
4. If you watched the video, it shows in real time with captured footage where and when the initiating collapse event occurred. It also shows diagrams. You refuse to watch and there is no other way to show it except in word(again, I provide this list) and visually.
5. When the lower structures could not support the load, they collapsed. They titled first, and followed the path of least resistance ejecting materials for blocks and finally residing on the ground.

I am not repeating the official story; I am repeating what I saw that day. Watching it live. Wondering if relatives were ok and then finally watching them collapse.
Your question, what was removed. Well, how about the core columns destroyed by the planes. It was designed to have as much rental commercial space as possible. This is why there are inner columns and they were attached to the outer structure so you do not have columns all throughout the building cutting into such space. If you ever worked in a high rise you would have noticed that and anything that can take away from rentable space is not needed. This is fact. Rockefeller pushed this.

While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. According to research by NIST, a fall of only half a meter would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.

Also, NIST did not reject the pancake theory that was first posed by FEMA but expanded upon it. It found the true reason of the collapse after years of investigation where FEMA was giving a theory months after 9/11 occurred.

As far as the 1975 fire, I gave you a quote from the same guy you are that states there were two floors of water damage and some smoke damage. Now, I am not sure what videos you have watched of 9/11 since you refuse to watch videos, but, uh, you do not have to be a genius as you so sarcastically called me to see that the fire on 9/11 dwarfed it. Also, the fact that you feel sprinklers would make no difference surprises me since you seem to have such a good collection of knowledge of how a structure is designed and built. Sprinklers on 9/11, in my opinion, may have been able to save one of the towers and saved numerous first responders.
Also, my name is not strawman.

reply to post by esdad71

The momentum of the falling structures, (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2 from top to impact zone) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

Red flag right there (in bold).

You see, as it fell, it gained momentum by hitting the lower floors

So momentum was not conserved in the collisions?

Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads

If the dynamic loads are applied in a cyclic manor. If they are impact loads then in design they are treated as static loads times an impact factor.

reply to post by Azp420


I think you may be referring to The law of conservation of linear momentum. Am I correct? Again, you are using part of a theory or law of physics and not employing others parts or variations of the rule or base law. If I am incorrect, please explain it to me?

reply to post by esdad71

You see, as it fell, it gained momentum by hitting the lower floors

Momentum is conserved throughout the impacts of each floor (assuming it is completely efficient). It cannot gain momentum by hitting lower floors and collecting their mass. For it to collect their mass there must be a decrease in downwards velocity to conserve momentum. Gravity then increases the momentum as it accelerates between floors. Adding the mass of each floor it collects has no effect on momentum.

Therefore the overall momentum of the falling mass as it approaches the bottom would be no greater than the momentum of the top section at the same point if it fell with no tower underneath it.

Whether that's what happened or not is another story. I would have expected to see much greater decreases in velocity (as it collected extra mass, was damped by inefficiencies) than for it to be able to maintain an average acceleration of approximately two thirds free fall if gravity alone is driving the collapse.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

The momentum of the falling structures, (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2 from top to impact zone) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

That is BULLSH#!!!

Just because the mass increases does not mean the momentum or kinetic energy increase.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COLUMNS IN THE CORE?

Collapsing those columns requires energy. But Newton's 3rd Law means the bottom of the falling mass will be crushed simultaneously with the top of the intact structure below. The energy required to collapse those levels can only come from the kinetic energy of the falling portion.

THEREFORE IT WOULD SLOW DOWN!!!

That is what my model is designed to test.

www.youtube.com...

Ryan Mackey explains modeling at the beginning but his falling mass is wrong. His mass would not crush and absorb energy. My REAL PHYSICAL MODEL corrected that Stupid Defect.

The people who have chosen to BELIEVE collapse was possible must convince themselves that IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS could happen. Not knowing the quantity of steel in the core and not knowing the energy required to collapse each level of the core makes computing the physics of 9/11 impossible.

I can compute the potential energy and crush energy for my model. But my model arrests far short of complete collapse.

www.rationalskepticism.org...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


There are no impossible physics. However, you also cannot pick and choose what applies which is what you are doing. You cannot enforce one part of one law and call it a day.

Just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

As far as your model, it is #. Pure #. It is like saying I can build a paper airplane and then translate that to the 787. Sorry, but it is. It is no better than a 4th grade science project. However, building a skyscraper is a not a 4th grade project and requires more understanding of physics than i believe you have.

Originally posted by esdad71
The momentum of the falling structures, (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2 from top to impact zone) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Nonsense. I'm tired of repeating this but you are completely ignoring the KNOWN laws of motion as explained to us, and yet to be questioned by anyone, Sir Isaac Newton.

First off why are you arguing for pancake collapse when NIST does not support pancake collapse?

You see, as it fell, it gained momentum by hitting the lower floors because it was collecting and building mass of the lower floors.

First off for me to explain why you're wrong I have to try to figure out what it is you're saying. I can only assume to understand what you're saying because, even if you think you are, you are not explaining anything. All you are doing is saying what you think happened, not HOW it happened. Do you understand that?

Now to actually explain how it collapsed, the way you describe, you need to explain the physics involved. Saying it was mass and momentum is not explaining the physics. Do you understand that?

This was explained by NIST.

No it wasn't. They only tried to explain the collapse initiation, they said this about the collapse...

"We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse" NIST

www.911proof.com...

(BTW that is not a link to 911proof it's a link to the PDF of NISTs reply, don't be afraid to look)

So no NIST did not explain the collapses.

They also have evidence that 40-50 stories of each building remained standing for up to a half a minute before also finally collapsing. Nothing pancaked…just like you say in your post. Larger mass always wins. You are right that the third law comes into play but you are not explaining it but I did.

Funny thing is I am trying to tell you nothing pancaked, you want to argue that floors dropped on floors and the weight caused the collapse. That is a progressive/pancake collapse. You keep confusing your own argument just to dismiss anything I say.

If it wasn't floors falling on floors, progressive/pancake collapse, as NIST does not support and can not explain, then what was it? Why do you keep arguing it was? I agree it wasn't a pancake collapse because the physical evidence does not support it. I'm sure that is why NIST 'didn't go there', so to speak. So do you agree there must have been more energy than gravity involved, or are you still going to stick to the argument you claim you don't agree with in the first place?

The collapse did not occur because of just Newtons laws as you and other keeps saying but it occurred based on numerous things.

Hold on there Einstein, the collapse happened because of Newtons laws? Are you serious? You have just in one line proved you have no idea at all what you are arguing against. I don't need to even explain, anyone with half a brain can see what you just said.

I was going to address your whole post but it's now pointless, you just discredited your whole rant, I have no need to prove you wrong any more.

The collapses happened because of Newtons laws, yes that is exactly what I have been saying...

How about the collapses could not have happened as you claim because of the laws of motion as explained by Sir Isaac Newton?

You can't keep your own argument straight, you don't understand the counter argument, you don't even understand the OS you blindly support. You are doing nothing but confusing and disrupting the debate.

reply to post by esdad71


The Laws of Motion is not just one part of the physics.

It covers THE LAWS OF MOTION.

That is inclusive of all physics involved in things in motion, and things in motion when they collide.

You can not throw out the laws of motion.

The 3rd law is important because it's the one that explains what happens when things collide, like floors colliding with floors.

How many more times are you going to prove how clueless you are. No wonder you believe the OS...

[shakes head]

Its also amazing they could build building twice the height of WTC in a very windy area



Forget the twin towers, the 3rd building that "collapsed" were very tall, it would stand out in most cities and were not hit by a plane.
rememberbuilding7.org...
NIST said it collapsed in free fall, and were nothing wrong with the design, and NIST said it collapsed due to office fire alone.
wtc.nist.gov...
Why was building 7 not all over the media 10 years ago?

NIST collapse simualation vs what really happened

Where the rest of the simulation?
NIST only simalulated the beginning, and they even got that wrong.

reply to post by ANOK


The Laws of Motion are one part of physics. They are three parts that create the modern basis for classical mechanics. Within these , there are subsets that explain different types of mass/activity. It has been joined in the modern age with Quantum mechanics. Newton did not invent Physics....Physics is simply the study of matter and how it moves(motion) related to force and energy.

I am not throwing out Newtons third law. You are correct in saying the third law is important, but you are using it in too broad of a sense and not delving into all aspects. Look up the mass–energy equivalence.

Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. Mass and energy are both conserved separately in special relativity, and neither may be created or destroyed. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter, a more poorly defined idea in the physical sciences. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but the precursors and products of such reactions retain both the original mass and energy, each of which remains unchanged (conserved) throughout the process.

Please take the time to read into this. I am not berating you or putting you down(clueless) as you have intended with me, attempting to call into play my intelligence based on the fact i understand, not believe, the OS. There is a difference.

Also, I am not arguing a pancake collapse so please leave that out going forward. That was a FEMA statement that NIST showed was not the cause in initial testing.

Originally posted by psikeyhackrThat is BULLSH#!!!

Just because the mass increases does not mean the momentum or kinetic energy increase.

LOL!! Yes, actually it does.

If something is traveling at 1 kph, and it weighs 1 kg, it has a KE of .5 joules.

If something is traveling at 1 kph, and it weighs 2 kg, it has a KE of 1 joule.

www.csgnetwork.com...

Simple really.