What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Then the core of of the north tower would have had to come down on the stationary intact core. Then the amount of steel on each level of the core needs to be known to analyse the supposed compression of collapse. How thick were the horizontal beams in the core that would have to be impacting each other.

If you just BELIEVE then there is now need to ask for the obviously necessary data.

How could it all come down in less than 26 seconds?

psik

Do you really need someone to hold your hand.

911research.wtc7.net...

Blue Prints from a truther site

Also from a truther site Mass of steel per floor (exculding decking and trusses I think)

Floor Steel
110 101
109 114
108 127
107 140
106 153
105 167
104 180
103 193
102 206
101 219
100 232
..... .....
001 1535

Above this is an approximation based on the total tons BUT its probably the best you will get.

Can give you masses down to the basements if you want!!!!!!!

Also from a truther site. For a tower.

Component Mass ......... (short tons) ......... Mass (metric tons)
Concrete floor inside core area .......... 29 400 ......... 26 671
Concrete floor outside core area .......... 56 600 ......... 51 347
Structural steel .......... 89 416 ......... 81 117
Live-load inside core .......... 8 075 ......... 7 326
Live-load outside core ......... 38 850 ......... 35 244
Superimposed dead-load ......... 17 600 ......... 15 966
Total mass above grade ......... 239 941 ......... 217 671

So much for each tower being 500,000 tons

Hmm, quite the coincidence...




Disney's: Jungle 2 Jungle - Released 1997

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Then the core of of the north tower would have had to come down on the stationary intact core. Then the amount of steel on each level of the core needs to be known to analyse the supposed compression of collapse. How thick were the horizontal beams in the core that would have to be impacting each other.

If you just BELIEVE then there is now need to ask for the obviously necessary data.

How could it all come down in less than 26 seconds?

psik

Do you really need someone to hold your hand.

911research.wtc7.net...

Blue Prints from a truther site

Also from a truther site Mass of steel per floor (exculding decking and trusses I think)

Floor Steel
110 101
109 114
108 127
107 140
106 153
105 167
104 180
103 193
102 206
101 219
100 232
..... .....
001 1535

Above this is an approximation based on the total tons BUT its probably the best you will get.

Can give you masses down to the basements if you want!!!!!!!

So, Gregory Urich gives masses down to the basement. What do you bet they don't match? Urich admits he is doing and INTERPOLATION from the 9th floor to the top on the perimeter. So why haven't OFFICIAL SOURCES who expect us to believe airliners could destroy buildings 2000 times their own mass provided data that is not GUESSES.Lon Waters and Tony Zamboti both say we don't have accurate data on the horizontal beams in the core.

That is why 9/11 is a Scientific FARCE.

Lots of sources from before 9/11 say there was a total of 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete.

200,000 tons of steel 425,000 cubic yards of concrete

www.infoplease.com...

The NIST agrees with that amount of steel but they never specify the total for the concrete which is certainly curious. Doing the calculation gives a minimum of 300,000 tons of concrete per building. So you can pick and choose among Internet sources and claim it is valid all you want but that ain't science.

Component Mass ......... (short tons) ......... Mass (metric tons)
Concrete floor outside core area .......... 56 600 ......... 51 347

A single concrete floor outside the core was 206 by 206 feet.

Subtract the core of 135 by 85 feet.

206²−(135×85) = 30,961 square feet.

The corrugated pans caused the floors to vary betwee 4 and 5 inches thick. I have seen pictures of the edge so I use 4.333 inches which is 0.361 foot.

30,961 square feet * 0.361 foot = 11,179.5 cubic feet per floor.

The lightweight concrete was 110 lb/cu ft.

1,229,745.11 pounds / 2000 lb/ton = 615 tons of concrete per floor outside the core. Times 110 floors is 67,636 tons outside the core.

But that number is wrong because there were only 86 floors that used the modular design. The mechanical floors were heavier. So that 56,000 tons of concrete is easily proven wrong. I have looked at Urich's data before. If the correct data is out there we don't know which one it is.

It is Believers versus Believers. Science is about KNOWING. This situation is totally ridiculous from the nation that put men on the Moon 43 years ago and is currently sending another lander to Mars.

Why haven't all of the people who call themselves SCIENTISTS in this country been demanding a CLEAR RESOLUTION TO THIS? That is an interesting question by itself. Of course they will still look silly if they start demanding it now after letting it go for TEN YEARS.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The figs I have seen say 96,000 tons of steel for each tower, and your info at infoplease says WORLD TRADE CENTER which was a refernce to the COMPLEX NOT individual towers.

You keep going on like others re the plane not being able to do that I have said before NO ONE on either side knows how much damage was done due to impact fuel explosion then the fires.

Also as many have said numerous times on here the main problem with the design was that fact that floors were suspened between the walls and core.

We don't need to know the exact dimensions of the horizontal beams, you have worked out the mass of the concrete so as has been said before a good estimate of impact force can be worked out.

If that force is many times the floorslab mass it would fail and once floors fail you have a real problem with wall stability and we saw the result.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The figs I have seen say 96,000 tons of steel for each tower, and your info at infoplease says WORLD TRADE CENTER which was a refernce to the COMPLEX NOT individual towers.

That 425,000 cubic yards is for BOTH TOWERS. Do the calculations. There were two types of concrete used. 110 and 150 lb/cu ft. Using 110 gives more than 300,000 tons per tower.

If you think 96,000 tons per tower versus 200,000 tons for both towers is a significant difference be my guest. Someone could just be rounding off.

The south tower was 1360 feet tall and the north tower was 1368 feet. I have not seen anyone specify the difference in the steel between the two. How could it have been identical?

Infoplease is just copying other sources. It was just the first one I found. I have seen those same numbers for seven years when I first started paying attention to the fact that this trivia has not been resolved.

What is the problem? Is the fact that it is so easy to show your concrete outside the core is wrong a difficulty? There are lots of different numbers out there. How does anyone know which ones are correct? It is easy to compute the weight of a single concrete floor slab on the basis of numbers almost everyone agrees to. But I never see anyone come out and say a floor slab was 600 tons. That is really curious. But I don't know how much the trusses and pans weighed because I don't see that either. So that PROVES this whole thing is BAD SCIENCE.

You don't do SCIENCE on Newtonian Physics without correct data.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Well one of us is talking bullsh#!

Yes.

You are.

The perimeter columns and spandrels mad a two dimensional array. A single perimeter was connected to two other perimeters at the corners but those corners were 200 FEET APART and the building was 1360 feet tall. So saying those perpendicular corners gave rigidity to the building is ridiculous.

It was the close together three dimensional array of the core that provided the rigidity. The length of horizontal steel in the core had to be more than two and a half times the vertical steel. But then we are not told how much thicker it got down the building.

psik

911research.wtc7.net...

This is from engineering news articles fromthe construction period.

"Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube. The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above."



Now, if you are able to understand any of that, note that the most important lines are "The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind,"

Learn something yet?

While doing a quick search I found part of an interesting study. I know it is a little off topic of the argument at hand but I thought I would share it anyways.

Here is a diagram of the truses and possible explanation for truss collapse.


link

There are other diagrams on the heat range and the timeline.

Just thought I would throw it out there.

Sounds pretty logical to me.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You dont need an exact fig for the floorslab weight to work out the impact load would be VAST DO YOU!

Thats what you ALWAYS ignore, look at data for bolts regarding loading, safety factors are applied we know an approx fig for slab mass, and if we work out an impact load thats more than say 6 times the bolts working load they are going to fail!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Even IF the loading was enough to break the connections it still wouldn't be a complete collapse. You are still going to lose Ke to break those connections, the crush the floors, as well as heat and sound.

Every floor impact would lose Ke, thus the collapse would slow down, not accelerate.

That is what you keep ignoring.

Also if the floors had the loading to break connections, why didn't the connections break before the sagging trusses could pull in columns? Surely the columns were much stronger than the connections? I mean you all used to use that as an excuse, the weak point. You even point out that the truss seats were gone post collapse. What made the truss seats fail if they were strong enough to pull in massive 4" thick steel box columns?

There is simply not enough energy in a collapse to break connections and pulverize floors, including all the steel floor pans, another point you always ignore.

So many contradictions that you ignore.

Originally posted by ANOK
why didn't the connections break before the sagging trusses could pull in columns?

Gradual applied load.

What made the truss seats fail if they were strong enough to pull in massive 4" thick steel box columns?

Impact load.


www.roymech.co.uk...

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Even IF the loading was enough to break the connections it still wouldn't be a complete collapse. You are still going to lose Ke to break those connections, the crush the floors, as well as heat and sound.

Every floor impact would lose Ke, thus the collapse would slow down, not accelerate.

That is what you keep ignoring.

Between each floor is 12ft of space. 12ft of displacement where debris undergoes linear acceleration. No published studies show energy absorption even within an order of magnitude of what's needed. Yes, breaking connections will use up KE, but then the subsequent acceleration will more than make it back up.

Also if the floors had the loading to break connections, why didn't the connections break before the sagging trusses could pull in columns? Surely the columns were much stronger than the connections?

Indeed the columns were strong, so much so that many floor trusses tore out of their bolt holes. We know this from debris studies, but the magnitude of the impact forces is quite different. We're talking about 6kips inward force or tens of thousands of tons distributed over a couple of hundred trusses.

I mean you all used to use that as an excuse, the weak point. You even point out that the truss seats were gone post collapse. What made the truss seats fail if they were strong enough to pull in massive 4" thick steel box columns?

Vertical impact.

There is simply not enough energy in a collapse to break connections and pulverize floors, including all the steel floor pans, another point you always ignore.

So many contradictions that you ignore.

How do you know there's not enough energy? Every peer reviewed study indicates there is more than enough energy, and I've never seen you provide any calculations.

Do you really believe there's not enough energy just because you say so? Have you read the paper you asked me to show you yet?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You dont need an exact fig for the floorslab weight to work out the impact load would be VAST DO YOU!

Thats what you ALWAYS ignore, look at data for bolts regarding loading, safety factors are applied we know an approx fig for slab mass, and if we work out an impact load thats more than say 6 times the bolts working load they are going to fail!

VAST oh yeah, that is so precise.

The floor slab weight helps indicate how strong the connections had to be to hold it which VAST amounts of energy would be required to break them so any falling mass would SLOW DOWN.

The issue is not if the load would break the first support it hits the issue is if it will SLOW DOWN and have less energy for the one after that and less energy for the one after that.

My model demonstrates that supports are destroyed but the mass ultimately stops. So how could the north tower come down in less than TWENTY SIX SECONDS. It is the time that is IMPOSSIBLE without other factors involved. The Conservation of Momentum alone makes it take 12 seconds with no energy lost to breakage. And then our physicists are not even demanding accurate distribution of mass data. GREAT SCIENCE!

Believers do not require data. It's the 9/11 Religion.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The floor slab weight helps indicate how strong the connections had to be to hold it which VAST amounts of energy would be required to break them so any falling mass would SLOW DOWN.

Yes.

The issue is not if the load would break the first support it hits

Yes.

the issue is if it will SLOW DOWN and have less energy for the one after that and less energy for the one after that.

Of course it will slow down.

But it is also true that it will also accelerate again in the 12' of airspace between floors and gain ke. Do you agree?

My model demonstrates that supports are destroyed but the mass ultimately stops.

I would expect that, since the 12' of airspace between floors that allows the mass to accelerate agin cannot be scaled. Do you agree that the 12' of airspace cannot be scaled?

So how could the north tower come down in less than TWENTY SIX SECONDS.

Momentum transfer. Ke is lost in the collisions and then gained again in the 12' drop between floors.

It is the time that is IMPOSSIBLE without other factors involved.

Prove it.

The Conservation of Momentum alone makes it take 12 seconds with no energy lost to breakage.

I have pointed out the erroneous assumptions made in your Python program before and made suggestions to make it more accurate. You did not reply nor even acknowledge it. Why is this? Are you not searching for truth?

Believers do not require data. It's the 9/11 Religion.

psik

This is true.

I pointed out just where your assumptions were wrong in your Python program and you ignored it. So apparently, making correct assumptions when researching 9/11 is also not required for you, making 9/11 YOUR religion.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Of course it will slow down.

But it is also true that it will also accelerate again in the 12' of airspace between floors and gain ke. Do you agree?

You mean in that THEORETICALLY PERFECT world where all 200 connections break at the exact same instant and the floor does not tilt and squeeze the core creating all sorts of friction?

That theoretically perfect world that only exists in your head.

600 ton slab breaks 200 connections and falls while remaining perfectly horizontal.

And how many walls have tenants built between these slabs? How many cubicles? How much furniture unevenly distributed? This perfect pancaking is such a hilarious delusion. And then they can't even tell us the weight of the pans and trusses.

psik

the911forum.freeforums.org...

From OWE:

"Scaling is one of the two reasons psikeyhackr's model fails miserably. The more important reason is that he does not understand the concept of the load-displacement relation for materials under yield. Because of this, he modeled something which is guaranteed to arrest, and which demonstrably has no relation to any load-bearing component in the towers. The model is utterly useless as a model of the tower collapses."


There appears to be a concensus that your experiment/video is nonsense.

I like a concensus. I bet you don't.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You mean in that THEORETICALLY PERFECT world where all 200 connections break at the exact same instant and the floor does not tilt and squeeze the core creating all sorts of friction?

No, I mean in the real world where the floor slab is broken into pieces, they are free to fall independently, and there is zero friction with any core columns.

That theoretically perfect world that only exists in your head.

No. Your counter arguement counts on a theoretically perfect world. My reality does not.

600 ton slab breaks 200 connections and falls while remaining perfectly horizontal.

And again. Nope. This is your strawman. And even then, you have not even brought evidence that your cliam of "friction" would be enough to halt the collapse.

Most would call an inability to defeat your own strawman an utter fail

This perfect pancaking is such a hilarious delusion.
psik

And it is your delusion.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
No, I mean in the real world where the floor slab is broken into pieces, they are free to fall independently, and there is zero friction with any core columns.

Even if the floor slab cracked how does it come into separated pieces. It was poured on corrugated pans. And if you had watched the videos of the floors being poured you would see there was steel rebar INSIDE THE CONCRETE.

That 600 tons is probably a little low because the steel would make the slab heavier.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Even if the floor slab cracked how does it come into separated pieces.

By the 10's of thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling on it.

How do you propose that it stays intact?

Again, your pals over at Greg;s forum have documented that the collapse front - the spots where air is being pushed out - is verifiably happening on different floors on different faces oc the towers. So this isn't conjecture. it is fact. the floors were not intact.

And if you had watched the videos of the floors being poured you would see there was steel rebar INSIDE THE CONCRETE.

Not quite true. the truss bar joists extended up into the concrete to provide a composite floor. There was welded wire fabric inside the concrete though. Most definitely not rebar.

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

600 ton slab breaks 200 connections and falls while remaining perfectly horizontal.

And again. Nope. This is your strawman. And even then, you have not even brought evidence that your cliam of "friction" would be enough to halt the collapse.

Do you have evidence that friction would have any effect on the collapse speed?

Or are you just making a statement?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Well one of us is talking bullsh#!

Yes.

You are.

The perimeter columns and spandrels mad a two dimensional array. A single perimeter was connected to two other perimeters at the corners but those corners were 200 FEET APART and the building was 1360 feet tall. So saying those perpendicular corners gave rigidity to the building is ridiculous.

It was the close together three dimensional array of the core that provided the rigidity. The length of horizontal steel in the core had to be more than two and a half times the vertical steel. But then we are not told how much thicker it got down the building.

psik

911research.wtc7.net...

This is from engineering news articles fromthe construction period.

"Walls resist wind. In designing the record-height towers against wind, Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson adopted a scheme that does not rely on the core at all to take wind. Each tower will act as a vertical, cantilevered hollow tube. The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind, and most of the overturning moment will be taken by the exterior walls normal to the wind. For economy in resisting the stresses, the wall columns will be made of high-strength steels, as indicated in the diagram above."



Now, if you are able to understand any of that, note that the most important lines are "The giant Vierendeel trusses forming the loadbearing exterior walls will provide the required rigidity and strength to resist wind. All the horizontal shear will be resisted by the sides of the building parallel to the wind,"

Learn something yet?

edit on 26-6-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)

Also, do you admit your error here yet?

there is no shame in it. it is the path to knowledge.