6 of 7
6
9/11 Conspiracy Theories are bullshit.
Posted: 25 September 2007 04:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05

It’s the knocked it down part that I find problematic.

Have you heard how many tons of steel were on the floors where the planes hit?  Shouldn’t it be easy for EXPERTS to specify the tons of steel and concrete on every level from the original documentation after 6 years?  The NIST doesn’t even tell us the total amount of concrete.  Other sources provide data which indicates there should have been 280,000 tons of concrete in each tower.

Now if 100,000 tons of steel was evenly distributed thru the tower that would put 800+ tons on each floor.  It undoubtedly tapered toward the top but I haven’t found by how much.  You would think people trying to PROVE the plane could weaken enough steel in 56 minutes would have no problem providing that information, assuming the plane could do it.

How does a 166 ton plane containing 34 tons of kerosene, sometimes known as jet fuel, LEVEL 100,000 tons of steel and 280,000 tons of concrete when the fact that the atmosphere is only 20% oxygen makes it impossible to reach the 1800 degrees F which is the maximum burning temperature.  Jet engines have compressors in the front to increase the density of the oxygen above normal atmospheric pressure.

It’s the physics of the plane doing the deed that is the problem.  The government is irrelevant, except for getting the steel out of the country after the fact.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2007 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Check this image.  What is holding up those layers of concrete?  The metal trusses that were weakened by the fires.  Add to that equation the support columns for the buildings that were severed, and you have a recipe for collapse.

I know that you are having trouble wrapping your brain around all the concrete and steel because you aren’t an expert on skyscraper construction or physics.  You should allow the team of scientists and engineers at NIST who investigated the incident to educate you.  Maybe you have the same questions other confused individuals have; you can visit their FAQ at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm.

You know how I know that WTC towers fell because of plane impact?  The experiment was replicated.  Think about it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2007 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

ticktock -

Your diagram misses the most essential feature.  The ends of the main trusses were bolted to the core and the outer wall using two 5/8” bolts on each side.  Those bolts are what failed (at least were the main cause of the general failure), owing to the stresses of the floors deforming, and the overloading due to the junk falling onto the floors from collapsing floors above.  As the trusses sagged, they pulled against the bolts and the seats that the trusses were bolted to.  Imagine a long wooden plank that is placed between two buildings over an alley, such that the plank just makes it across, with an inch of it on either ledge.  As you put more weight on the plank, it will deform, curving downwards.  We all know that a curve between two points is longer than a straight line.  When that difference hits two inches, the curved plank can no longer even stretch over the gap.  That is what happened to the trusses, except hat the ends were pinned by those bolts to small steel ledges welded to the upright beams.  The more deformed they got, the harder they pulled - not vertically, but horizontally, off those small seats, as the bolts (and some of the seats) failed.  There are plenty of photos of these failed connections.

Here is a photo of a floor under construction (there is no concrete on it yet - the concrete would have just covered the parts of the wire sticking out of the floor):

image017.jpg

The wider seats are where the trusses were bolted, the narrower ones for the dampers (which serve to dampen normal vibration - they do not tie the trusses to the walls).  The small seat above and between the wide ones is to tie horizontal stabilizing elements.

Here is a photo that shows the effect of the sagging trusses pulling on the outer walls:

sag.ht2.jpg

The steel beams on the outside of the structure were extremely resistant to vertical forces - but not to horizontal ones.  They needed the horizontal trusses to keep them from bowing inward or outward.  The best example of how that works is the old stand on a can thing - you can stand, if you are careful, on a regular aluminium soda can, and it will support your weight, so long as you keep the forced running straight down through the metal.  Any slight deformation laterally, and the can fails suddenly.  The same is true of jacking up a car - on flat ground it it no problem, but on a hill you have to be very careful to make sure that the jack is perfectly vertical.  Even on flat ground, if anything shifts the car so that the jack is no longer vertical, it comes crashing down.  The outer walls of the WTC were like these things - very strong vertically, but only vertically.  When they deviated from enough from vertical, they could no longer direct the force of the weight above them downward, and enough was directed horizontally that they failed.

psikey, you have no concept of how structures work.  There was a tower, a radio mast, being put up.  They were lifting a set of antennas using a bolt that was too small.  That bolt failed, which overloaded a second bolt, which also failed, dropping the antenna array.  That structure fell onto a guy wire, which failed.  That led to the guy wires on the other side of the tower to pull too hard, deforming the tower, which swayed once, then back in the opposite direction, then crumpled.  The failure of a 2,000 foot tower was due to the failure of one bolt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqygUApfnZg

The WTC was more robust than such a tower, but the same rules apply.  The failure of a 1400 foot building was due to the failures of hundreds, thousands, of small structural elements.  There is only so much a structure can be weakened before it fails.

All your talk of how much heat it takes to heat how much steel is completely irrelevant.

How much heat does it take to weaken a chain made of of one billion links of 100g each to the point of failure?  That’s a hundred thousand tons of steel.  Could you break the chain with a blowtorch?  With one pair of bolt cutters?  About a minute with a hacksaw?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2007 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05

All your talk of how much heat it takes to heat how much steel is completely irrelevant.

Tell it to the NIST who couldn’t get trusses to fail in two hours, so how did the south tower collapse in 56 minutes?  Physics does not lie!  Any _______ should be able to watch the videos from 9/11 and figure out that a lot of energy must have come from something other than that plane impact and fire to produce those effects. 

Eagar’s collapse model sounded plausible enough ­­­but the NIST investigation didn’t bear it out.
Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated new trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. “The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.”[52] The investigative team cautiously noted that the exposure of the floor systems to fire on 9/11 was “substantially different” than the conditions in the test furnaces, which was true enough. Yet, the team noted that “this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.”[53] The UL tests not only laid to rest the theory that the trusses were the cause of the collapse on 9/11, if anything, the tests demonstrated the fundamental soundness of the WTC truss design.
Another finding: The WTC steel turned out to be significantly stronger than expected. Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the floor trusses samples, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%. “The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when specifications required 36 ksi.”[54] (1 ksi = 1,000 lb/per square inch) The NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were “much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.”[55] Notice­­­none of these findings support the NIST’s official explanation for the WTC collapse. On the contrary.

http://www.rense.com/general74/nist.htm

psik

[ Edited: 27 September 2007 04:39 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2007 04:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

I just put up photographs of the trusses failing, and you reply with some conjectural nonsense that declares that they couldn’t have failed.  Or perhaps you have some other explanation as to why the outer steel beams were being pulled into the building.

The tests on new trusses are irrelevant.  As I indicated, failures are progressive, chain reactions.  There were trusses that failed immediately because they were damaged by the impact, and trusses that were put under increased stress because of that damage.  No one has suggested that trusses were simply heated, then failed.  What has been suggested, if you actually read the explanations, is that failing trusses eventually caused the collapse.  But no report anywhere suggested that heating alone caused trusses to fail.

The evidence that trusses failed is overwhelming and beyond dispute.

It is clear that there is nothing that will ever convince you that planes caused the collapses.  You are entirely closed to the possibility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2007 04:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
rsonin - 27 September 2007 04:30 PM

I just put up photographs of the trusses failing, and you reply with some conjectural nonsense that declares that they couldn’t have failed.

There are no photographs of the trusses failing from fire.  Are you trying to tell us someone was inside the building taking pictures during the collapse and brought them out?  ROFL  The trusses failing is merely conjecture.  The NIST tested trusses made to the same specs under controlled conditions and they didn’t fail for two hours so how could they fail from fire in 56 minutes?  What caused the effects we see from the outside?  I knew about that before you created that post.  I have already done my research.

NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf page 147
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

“Finally, in the several columns with known pre-collapse fire exposure, metallographic analysis provided no conclusive evidence the the steel exceeded 625 deg C, based on calibration in furnace exposure studies of WTC steel reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-3E.”

Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf page 131

There is a table with a column that says “Failure to Support Load” the result of each test is “(3)”.  The footnotes beneath the table says “(3) Did not occur”.


psik

[ Edited: 27 September 2007 05:51 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2007 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

The columns in the second photo are very clearly being pulled into the building.  The only things attached to those columns were the trusses.  Therefore, the trusses are pulling them into the building.  The trusses do not normally pull on the columns with enough force to pull them into the building.  Therefore some extra stress must have been added.  The plausible explanation is that the trusses were overloaded by the weight of collapsing floors above them and/or weakened by impact or heat, therefore bowing downward and pulling on their connections until they failed.

How do you account for the added stress on the outer columns pulling them toward the center of the building if it is not failing trusses?

Please answer this directly, without any extraneous nonsense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2007 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
rsonin - 28 September 2007 08:36 PM

  Therefore, the trusses are pulling them into the building.  The trusses do not normally pull on the columns with enough force to pull them into the building.  Therefore some extra stress must have been added. .

I already provided you with the info that the NIST heat tested the trusses and demonstrated that a NORMAL fire could not produce the effects in 56 minutes.

That means something other that the plane and fire form the plane had to do it.

If the trusses failed the plane couldn’t do it.

So you are stuck looking for what did.  All of this crap about the trusses is trivial redirection.  All of the phenomenon must be explained.  The molten metal in the basements.  The pyroclastic cloud of micro-powdered concrete.

But the EXPERTS won’t even tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each and every level of the building.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2007 06:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

I ask for a direct answer without nonsense and your first sentence is nothing but diversionary nonsense, with extra diversionary in an attempt to change the subject.

1. The planes destroyed and weakened many structural elements including trusses and outer perimeter beams, so that the loads the obliterated or damaged elements were taking were redirected to other elements, some of which were damaged.

2. The fires further weakened some trusses, some of which were already damaged by the impact, and some of which were taking extra loads because of the structural damage.

3. As these overloaded trusses failed, other trusses were overloaded, and so on in a chain reaction, until the vertical structure, deprived of enough connections between the inner core and outer wall, failed.

Did the NIST test replicate the damage, the overloading, or any abnormal stresses?  No.  So, the NIST tests tells us nothing.  At best they can provide a baseline for a fire in an undamaged building.  But, obviously, the buildings were severely damaged, and the trusses near the holes were taking highly unusual loads.

But - back and to the left, my friend, back and to the left.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2007 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
rsonin - 01 October 2007 06:34 PM

Did the NIST test replicate the damage, the overloading, or any abnormal stresses?  No.  So, the NIST tests tells us nothing.

If you say tests tell you nothing then physics, science and engineering mean nothing to you just like your talk about nuclear weapons demonstrates.

You compare destroying a city to vaporizing a building.  Hiroshima was a wooden city.  The flash from the bomb just had to ignite the wood, it didn’t have to vaporize anything. 

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2007 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2006-04-03

Wow!!  I have admired rsonin’s patience with psikeyhackr’s absolute inability to understand simple concepts.  But psikeyhackr’s last post has driven me to add my voice.

rsonin - 01 October 2007 06:34 PM
Did the NIST test replicate the damage, the overloading, or any abnormal stresses?  No.  So, the NIST tests tells us nothing.

psikeyhackr:
If you say tests tell you nothing then physics, science and engineering mean nothing to you just like your talk about nuclear weapons demonstrates.

Psikeyhackr: Please pay attention.  The trusses ultimately had to support much more weight than they were designed for (Plus the stress from the fire).  The NIST test DID NOT replicate all the events of that day.  In reality, the trusses and the overall design of the Towers couldn’t take the plane flying into it at 600 mph, the jet fuel and the combustion of all the flammable materials on each floor.  The trusses failed, and the floors pancaked.  One on top of the other, increasing in weight, as they collapsed to the ground.

It was a horrible event.  Caused by religious fundamentalist hoping to get into a mythic Paradise (don’t forget the Virgins!!).  As much as the Bush administration has failed this country, they merely took advantage of us after 9/11.  They didn’t cause it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2007 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
HappyHumanist - 02 October 2007 12:49 PM

In reality, the trusses and the overall design of the Towers couldn’t take the plane flying into it at 600 mph, the jet fuel and the combustion of all the flammable materials on each floor.  The trusses failed, and the floors pancaked.  One on top of the other, increasing in weight, as they collapsed to the ground.

Since you can’t even get the velocity of the plane correct your voice isn’t worth very much.

The government’s calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): “Moving at 500 mph, an engine broke any exterior column it hit.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a959southcollapse

“Sixteen and a half minutes after the first impact, five hijackers flew United Airlines (UA) Flight 175, with 9 crew and 51 passengers, into WTC 2 at about 540 mph, about 100 mph faster than AA Flight 11,” the NIST report says.

http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

You are the first person I have seen claim it was 600 mph.  Going from 540 to 600 mph would be a 23% increase in kinetic energy.  A significant amount.  Maybe you have access to information the rest of us don’t.  Any info about tons of steel and concrete on every level and how this delusional pancaking destroyed the core?

If the pancake theory was true, why wasn’t a stack of floor slabs found at ground zero?

Why was the FBI looking for bombers on 9/11?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/011007_thought_bombs.htm

And why did they stop?

psik

[ Edited: 02 October 2007 04:04 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2007 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2006-04-03

Well, sorry about the speed of the planes.  I’m off by some.  I am not a 9/11 conspiracist, so I don’t have all the minutia at my fingertips.

I have my eyes and brain, and I saw the floors that were damaged weaken and collapse, bringing the several floors above straight down.  Then the whole thing just collapsed. Down to the ground.  Like pancakes. Floor 79 and above collapsing down on Floor 78, then the whole thing collapsing on Floor 77, and so on (Don’t bother to tell me that it was actually Floor 80 or whatever that started the collapse.  It doesn’t matter which floor buckled first for this discussion). Or are you still claiming that the towers were brought down by explosives that no one saw being installed?  On a structurally sound building?  You do know, I hope, that when a building is purposely brought down with explosives, the outside walls and all structural elements are disabled/weakened?  Then the charges are placed, and then the building implodes from the ground up?  That’s not what happened to the Towers.  See:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

for pix and explanation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2007 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

I don’t have time for evidence.  I only have time for questions about concrete and other red herring arguments from ignorance.

Did you not see my post about the Hiroshima conspiracy?  I mean, clearly it couldn’t be an atomic bomb that detonated because of all the wood left standing.  And um… yeah, pancake theories are concrete and thermate is “pull it” cause of the BBC put options are cruise missiles flying into the CIA.

I’m am wrong, aren’t I?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2007 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05

Apparently the NIST doesn’t accept the pancake theory so they must be “9/11 conspiracist” in your estimation.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


I am not a 9/11 conspiracist.

rsonin gets on my case because I won’t make accusations about who did what.  I don’t give a damn about any conspiracies.  I want to know how an airliner can supposedly knock down a 500,000 ton building in less than 1 hour because I don’t believe it.  So I am very unimpressed by people who say it happened but can’t get the facts straight because it means they just believe what someone told them but don’t actually understand it.

Your link undoubtedly applies to WTC7 but that building wasn’t hit by a plane so are you saying building 7 was a controlled demolition?  Because if you do then that makes you a 9/11 conspiracist.  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 7
6