2 of 22
2
CFI involved in scientific fraud?
Posted: 19 September 2012 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2380
Joined  2007-07-05
TimB - 19 September 2012 12:28 PM

I don’t understand the physics involved.  But I know that 3 buildings came down (pretty quickly once they started to collapse) with utter and complete destruction.  The sheer unlikelihood of such an event is enough to make a naive observer, like myself, wonder at the explanation.

When people think physics how many think of Einstein and e = m c ^2 ?

In discussing this subject I have had people bring up 1 pound rocks doing 85% of light speed and Einstein superceding Newton.  But this is 300 year old stuff.  As long as we are under 1% of light speed the Tau factor is less than 1/100th of 1%. 

When Apollo 11 landed on the Moon the Empire State Building was 38 years old and the Neutron had not been discovered.  But now, 43 years after the Moon landing, people who pride themselves on being scientific can’t deal with simple physics involving skyscrapers.  All you have to do is look at the shape of the CN Tower in Toronto to get an idea how mass must be distributed for really tall structures.  But since the CN Tower gets narrower toward the top it does not have nearly the wind problem of the WTC towers.

But how many physicists have been bringing up this issue in 11 years?  Could the top of the CN Tower crush everything below?

[228]
psiik

[ Edited: 19 September 2012 03:39 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
psikeyhackr - 19 September 2012 02:50 PM
TimB - 19 September 2012 12:28 PM

I don’t understand the physics involved.  But I know that 3 buildings came down (pretty quickly once they started to collapse) with utter and complete destruction.  The sheer unlikelihood of such an event is enough to make a naive observer, like myself, wonder at the explanation.

When people think physics how many think of Einstein and e = m c ^2 ?

In discussing this subject I have had people bring up 1 pound rocks doing 85% of light speed and Einstein superceding Newton.  But this is 300 year old stuff.  As long as we are under 1% of light speed the Tau factor is less than 1/100th of 1%. 

When Apollo 11 landed on the Moon the Empire State Building was 38 years old and the Neutron had not been discovered.  But now, 43 years after the Moon landing, people who pride themselves on being scientific can’t deal with simple physics involving skyscrapers.  All you have to do is look at the shape of the CN Tower in Toronto to get an idea how mass must be distributed for really tall structures.  But since the CN Tower gets narrower toward the top it does not have nearly the wind problem of the WTC towers.

But how many physicists have been bringing up this issue in 11 years?  Could the top of the CN Tower crush everything below?

[228]
psiik

I don’t have a clue.  Could a design flaw have been involved in how the 2 WTC towers collapsed?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2380
Joined  2007-07-05
TimB - 19 September 2012 04:00 PM

I don’t have a clue.  Could a design flaw have been involved in how the 2 WTC towers collapsed?

An important thing to look at is the difference between the start of collapse of WTC 2 versus WTC 1.

The NCSTAR1 report admits that the top 29 stories of WTC 2 tilted 22 degrees.  I have seen lots of video of that

tilt/rotation

in the passed few years but I have NEVER ONCE heard any discussion by structural engineers or physicists of this really bizarre phenomenon.  Now if it was just a tilt then the center of gravity had to move.  But the way the towers were designed half the weight was on the core.  The NIST says 53% was supported by the core and 47% by the perimeter.  But if the center of mass moved from over the core in the tilt then one side of the perimeter was not supporting anything so why didn’t the top fall down the side?

I have had one person say it rotated around the center of gravity.  But the physics of that would be even more fantastic.  When I pointed that out he stopped talking.  283 columns would have to be sheared in a couple of seconds in addition to the huge amount of energy to cause the rotation.

Now with the north tower 12% by height which was probably less than 8% by mass had to come straight down and accelerate itself and even more mass below in order to come down completely in less than 26 seconds.  I use that number because no one argues that the building took more time than that.  But a bowling ball dropped from the top falling through nothing but air would take 9.2 seconds.  So how did over 400,000 tons that stood for 28 years and withstood 100 mph winds do it in less than triple that time.

It is all very nice to talk about some “magical” flaw because if someone wants to believe in it there is probably no way to dispute it.  But how could this same magical flaw explain such differences in collapse initiations.  The tilt/rotation of the south tower is the most fantastic thing of all on 9/11 in my opinion and at the time I would have thought that physicists would have been all over it like white on rice.  But for most of the physics profession 9/11 has disappeared.
[242]

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15354
Joined  2006-02-14
TimB - 19 September 2012 04:00 PM

I don’t have a clue.  Could a design flaw have been involved in how the 2 WTC towers collapsed?

Tim, this is one of Psik’s obsessions. He’s been confronted by physicists and engineers on this site and demolished several times. If you want to find legitimate, reliable info about 9/11 there is plenty of it out there. Start with Wiki, and click through to any of the subjects that interests you. Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine have both run at least one lengthy article debunking the 9/11-truther nonsense. If you want you can search either site for those articles.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2380
Joined  2007-07-05
dougsmith - 19 September 2012 06:43 PM

He’s been confronted by physicists and engineers on this site and demolished several times.

CONFRONTED

That is an interesting word choice.

Why don’t you provide a few links to where engineers or physicists on this site explained what was incorrect about anything I have said?
[276]

psik

[ Edited: 19 September 2012 07:33 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 08:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
dougsmith - 19 September 2012 06:43 PM
TimB - 19 September 2012 04:00 PM

I don’t have a clue.  Could a design flaw have been involved in how the 2 WTC towers collapsed?

Tim, this is one of Psik’s obsessions. He’s been confronted by physicists and engineers on this site and demolished several times. If you want to find legitimate, reliable info about 9/11 there is plenty of it out there. Start with Wiki, and click through to any of the subjects that interests you. Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine have both run at least one lengthy article debunking the 9/11-truther nonsense. If you want you can search either site for those articles.

Thanks for your input.  I have seen Shermer speak in public.  I like his ideas.  This link may have been submitted before, but may bear repeating:  http://www.michaelshermer.com/2010/12/the-conspiracy-theory-detector/

I cannot deny the official explanations of the events of 9/11.  But it is still striking to me that a conspiracy by 17 guys resulted, directly or indirectly, in all of the destruction that day, including the first (and only?) ever utter destruction of a skyscraper (WTC 7) by ambient fire sources alone.  It seems almost superhuman, in effect.  But I have no better explanation to offer than the official version, and have neither the resources or the expertise to determine otherwise.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7664
Joined  2008-04-11

Sigh…I was wondering when he wold pipe up…. sick

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5550
Joined  2010-06-16

I believe there were only five guys involved in flying the aircraft that caused the many thousands of deaths in Hiroshima.  The fact that there were only 17 isn’t as significant as the tools they used, that is, four huge multi-engine commercial aircraft loaded with many thousands of gallons of highly flammable fuel and some small oxygen tanks.

Occam

[ Edited: 19 September 2012 11:06 PM by Occam. ]
 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 19 September 2012 11:03 PM

I believe there were only five guys involved in flying the aircraft that caused the many thousands of deaths in Hiroshima.  The fact that there were only 17 isn’t as significant as the tools they used, that is, four huge multi-engine commercial aircraft loaded with many thousands of gallons of highly flammable fuel and some small oxygen tanks.

Occam

Oh my, that is a weak analogy, Occam.  There was a crew of 12 on the Enola Gay.  They were accompanied by 2 other B-29s.  The crews were made up of highly experienced airmen.  They were under the direction of and supported by the greatest military on Earth.  They were carrying a secret weapon developed after years of painstaking research and work by some of the most brilliant scientists in the world.

Still, as improbable as the events of 9/11 seem to me to be, they did in fact happen.  So there must be some rational explanation.  For now, the best that we have is the official version.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 02:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
TimB - 19 September 2012 04:00 PM

I don’t have a clue.  Could a design flaw have been involved in how the 2 WTC towers collapsed?

No, of course not. The WTC towers were just not built resisting a plane crash, that’s it. Just compare the fragile way of their structures (heavily based on steel constructions) and the Empire State Building, which is based on reinforced concrete. In 1945, a B-25 crashed into the building, but because of its heavy structure, the building just kept standing.

Yes, psikeyhackr, there was MUCH MORE CONCRETE in the Empire State Building than in WTC.

TimB, a good introductory article here.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 04:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15354
Joined  2006-02-14
psikeyhackr - 19 September 2012 07:22 PM

Why don’t you provide a few links to where engineers or physicists on this site explained what was incorrect about anything I have said?

I don’t have the time or frankly the interest to muddle through the awful search engine on this site. But you know as well as I what happened. Anyone with real interest can spend time looking through old threads.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2380
Joined  2007-07-05
dougsmith - 20 September 2012 04:24 AM
psikeyhackr - 19 September 2012 07:22 PM

Why don’t you provide a few links to where engineers or physicists on this site explained what was incorrect about anything I have said?

I don’t have the time or frankly the interest to muddle through the awful search engine on this site. But you know as well as I what happened. Anyone with real interest can spend time looking through old threads.

So you can CLAIM what you can’t back up and everyone is supposed to believe you.

Very scientific.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2380
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 20 September 2012 02:12 AM

In 1945, a B-25 crashed into the building, but because of its heavy structure, the building just kept standing.

Yes, psikeyhackr, there was MUCH MORE CONCRETE in the Empire State Building than in WTC.

TimB, a good introductory article here.

That is a great example of the quality of information and thinking here.

A B-25 was a 12 ton aircraft.  It was flying in the fog so the pilot was most likely not doing it maximum speed.

The planes that crashed into the WTC towers had 10,000 gallons of fuel.  The fuel alone weighed 33 tons.  So all of the people comparing the 1945 skyscraper crash to the 2001 skyscraper crash are talking nonsense.  Regardless of whether they are saying collapses should or should not have happened.

What we never hear is that the south tower deflected 15 inches due to the plane impact.

The towers were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind.  So at the 81st floor where the plane impacted that wind should have made the tower move about 26 inches.  So apparently the impact of 150 tons at 550 mph did not approach the building’s limits.  But that brings up the fire.  Like I said no one explains how the top 29 stories could tilt/rotate due to fire and the entire NCSTAR1 report never mentions the center of mass of that portion of the building.

So apparently the physicists and engineers on this site, whoever they are, can over look things like just about everyone else.  And as for the concrete the NCSTAR1 report never specifies the amount of concrete in the towers so how does anyone know?  Documentation from before 9/11 says there was 425,000 cubic yards total in both towers.

During this twenty months, architectural and engineering drawings were prepared, the massive Waldorf-Astoria Hotel was demolished, the foundations and grillages were dug and set, 57,000 tons of structural steel were fabricated and milled to precise specifications. Ten million common bricks were laid, 62,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured, 6400 windows were set, and 67 elevators were installed in 7 miles of shafts. Interiors were equipped with 6,700 radiators, 2,500 toilets and sinks, and 51 miles of plumbing pipe, and were finished with 10,000 tons of plaster and 328,000 square feet of marble.

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_empire.htm

Believers do not need to check their facts apparently.  But the WTC did not have bricks as far as I know.

The arguments supporting the Official Story are so feeble one would think they were beneath the dignity of SKEPTICS.

[358]
psik

[ Edited: 20 September 2012 03:14 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
GdB - 19 September 2012 01:31 AM

A few points should be considered:

- The planes surely damaged parts of the structures of the building, but if there had been no fire the towers would still stand
- The fire was surely bigger than the size of the planes, maybe spreading over the whole floor, well, over several floors I assume
- The bearing structure became weaker and weaker, maybe not quite symmetrical, but sure not completely one sided as well
- When the towers crashed, there was of course no momentum of the planes left. This was dissipated by buildings and the ‘connected earth’ in a few seconds after the planes crashed into the building
- The planes did not crash at the basis of the buildings but very high. If the same crash with fires had happened e.g. at the 10th floor, and the buildings would have crashed, then you can be sure they would have fallen over to the side, and not just on their footprint
- Now assume the bearing structures started to break one sided: as far as I remember, the upper parts of the buildings did in fact fell a little to the side, but then the rest of the bearing structures on the floors also broke, and from then on it was free fall, straight down
- The falling to the side just stopped because the whole construction was now falling down.

It is extremely silly to suppose that there was more needed than planes crashing in these buildings with their steel constructions, to bring them down. If you need a conspiracy you better proof that Atta and co were in fact NSA or CIA agents, or were motivated by them. Which is nonsense also, of course.

The anomaly of WTC7 is what bothers me.  The NIST report says that it’s collapse was due to fire.  WTC7 collapsed in a way that also visually looks like controlled demolitions look.  It was not hit by a plane.  Falling debris from the taller tower did some structural damage and ignited the fires in WTC7, but NIST said that the structural damage did not lead to the collapse. That was caused only by the burning of what was already in the building.  This was a 49 story building.  This kind of collapse due to fire alone has never occurred except for WTC7.  That seems remarkable.  Of course, one might suggest that no other burning high rise has been less attended to while burning, due to the events that were going on around it.  So perhaps that is explanation enough. 

Another question has come to my attention. As I was prompted to go through links since this thread began, I came across links about “nanothermites” having been discovered in the WTC dust (that was created when the buildings collapsed).  I have tried to find links that explained why their would be such a thing in that dust.  I found one link that “debunked” nanothermites being an explosive, but it didn’t seem to answer my question which is “Why is there nanothermites in that dust?”  Note that I am asking a question and am seeking an answer.  I am not promoting some conspiratorial answer.  Perhaps someone has insight or a link that explains this.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2012 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2380
Joined  2007-07-05

Curious that Fullerton has disappeared from his thread.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 22
2