32 of 46
32
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 17 February 2012 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 466 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
dougsmith - 17 February 2012 09:40 AM

LOL

Fact free, hyperbolic innuendo. Great way to manufacture a nutty conspiracy theory.

On this, I agree. The facts of PNAC “Project for a New America Century” did not cost you one thin dime.

As far as credit for the manufacture of a conspiracy theory, I bow before the masters promoting the official narrative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 467 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
StephenLawrence - 16 February 2012 11:25 PM
LanceThruster - 16 February 2012 04:27 PM

All the more reason to treat it as unique and learn as much as possible from what was witnessed that day.

 

The only thing to learn is how best to respond.

we’re not going to start building sky scrapers to withstand being crashed into by jumbo jets or anything.

Stephen

Or not…

The World Trade Center Twin Towers Were Designed For Jet Impacts

http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/The_World_Trade_Center_Twin_Towers_Were_Designed_For_Jet_Impacts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 468 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

Good, not undeniable, but it’s something. Still, the overall evidence is weak and unconvincing.

I like that other article you posted, that shows exactly what you’ve been reading to come to think like you do about people who believe the official story. The author clearly has a superiority complex and has duped you into joining him in his delusion. Don’t worry about the lack of facts, Lance. You don’t need those. You just need to be told that everyone else is dumber than you, and that will convince you. We’re just sheeple, right Lance? We don’t think. We just need to be informed of our emotional and reactionary ways and we will see the truth just like you have.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 469 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
domokato - 17 February 2012 11:27 AM

Good, not undeniable, but it’s something. Still, the overall evidence is weak and unconvincing.

I like that other article you posted, that shows exactly what you’ve been reading to come to think like you do about people who believe the official story. The author clearly has a superiority complex and has duped you into joining him in his delusion. Don’t worry about the lack of facts, Lance. You don’t need those. You just need to be told that everyone else is dumber than you, and that will convince you. We’re just sheeple, right Lance? We don’t think. We just need to be informed of our emotional and reactionary ways and we will see the truth just like you have.

I notice just the opposite of a superiority complex. I notice a humble and inquisitive mind seeking answers on his own because it was so very clear they were not forthcoming from those in positions to know.

You need to quit pretending you have the answers when those have been blocked. You need to join with others and demand answers. You need to be skeptical of those with something to gain when they say, “Move along. Nothing to see here.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 470 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 17 February 2012 09:02 AM
Write4U - 16 February 2012 07:41 PM

How can anyone have seperated this into two or three unrelated events? Now that sounds to me like complete denial of physics.

I can stack 50 tons of steel tubes and t-bars on top of a single tube or t-bar with “good weight” distribution and nothing happens. 

Let’s see the video.  LOL

The video shows two towers standing firm with structural integrity and proper weight distribution throughout. Then the video shows an BIG plane (about 350 tons) hitting and penetrating the side of one of the towers, almost completely disappearing, similar to a dum dum bullet penetrating and expanding inside its target.  (Moments later another BIG plane impacting the second tower in basically the same way, but at a slightly different angle)
Then the video shows an enormous fire and smoke rising from the tower at the levels of impact. Then, some few minutes later, the video shows a small buckling of the upper level of the first tower and stuff beginning to fall down from the building, more smoke. Then we see a gradual further collapsing of the upper levels and more stuff falling down, more smoke. Then some time later we see the levels just below the upper levels begin to collapse and more buckling, more stuff falling down, more smoke., etc.
All by all it took about half an hour for the building’s general integrity beginning to fail, from the top down with an an ever increasing momentum, until a total collapse was witnessed.
The whole process from impact to total collapse was close to an hour, which supports a sequential series of events. (The video also shows the second building undergoing a similar though slightly different gradual collapse).

So you think you can PROVE something with empty claims?

No, you seem to be doing that. Remember “an extraordinary claim”?

I don’t know what 3 things you are talking about.  Like I said, you are the ONLY PERSON I have encountered in years trying to count the collapse from the plane impact.  So you figure out how CORRECT that makes you appear.
psik

You are the one claiming several separate and physically unrelated events (a secondary conspiracy to demolish the buildings at an opportune time), not I.
I am claiming a logically consistent sequence of events starting with the initial impact of the planes hitting the buildings and starting a domino effect.

Re your highlighted 50 ton example.

You can easily stack 50 tons on a rectangular (say) 50’ steel tube, both horizontally and vertically, as long as the total weight and balance is distributed evenly. note: a hollow rectangular tube only needs to be damaged on 1 of its four sides to lose integrity
But a 50 ton press can easily collapse or buckle the same tube, when compression weight on, and balance of the tube, is unevenly distributed.
(The crossbars (spreaders) on the main mast of a sailboat aid in keeping the mast from buckling in the middle).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreader, then select “spreader (sailboat)” Even then, have you seen a 2 million dollar titanium mast on ocean racers snap like a twig? It happens all the time.

I am not saying that the level at which the planes impacted the buildings was an accident. Bin Laden was familiar with structural engineering and may well have calculated some of the factors involved in bringing down a tall building.

From wiki,

The tube frame design using steel core and perimeter columns protected with sprayed-on fire resistant material created a relatively lightweight structure that would sway more in response to the wind compared to traditional structures such as the Empire State Building that have thick, heavy masonry for fireproofing of steel structural elements.[35] During the design process, wind tunnel tests were done to establish design wind pressures that the World Trade Center towers could be subjected to and structural response to those forces.[36] Experiments also were done to evaluate how much sway occupants could comfortably tolerate, however, many subjects experienced dizziness and other ill effects.[37] One of the chief engineers Leslie Robertson worked with Canadian engineer Alan G. Davenport to develop viscoelastic dampers to absorb some of the sway. These viscoelastic dampers, used throughout the structures at the joints between floor trusses and perimeter columns along with some other structural modifications, reduced the building sway to an acceptable level.

At cost of structural integrity.

[ Edited: 18 February 2012 04:08 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 03:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 471 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

Don’t worry about the lack of facts, Lance. You don’t need those. You just need to be told that everyone else is dumber than you, and that will convince you.

You’re the one claiming nothing unusual happened so we needn’t worry about gathering any facts beneath the surface.

I know for a fact that I am NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer and even *I* can see that much of the official narrative doesn’t pass the smell test.

As my pal Bernie the Attorney sez when damning people who are spewing pure spin, “They are either stupid…or liars, and I don’t think they’re in a position known for hiring stupid people to fill it.”

He also states that in the world of “dueling experts”, facts are the easiest things to confuse people with because as he, I, and Hitler agree on…the masses are essentially low information consumers and decide based more on emotion than facts.

He cuts to the chase and says that foreknowledge is the smoking gun (i.e. airline stock short sales & “the dancing Israelis”).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 472 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15

Lance what the hell does your post have to do with W4U’s narrative of what a nation watched unfold in front of them?


Still curious if anyone can explain the thing about how many seconds it took total collapse to occur?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2012 07:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 473 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
LanceThruster - 17 February 2012 03:45 PM

Don’t worry about the lack of facts, Lance. You don’t need those. You just need to be told that everyone else is dumber than you, and that will convince you.

You’re the one claiming nothing unusual happened so we needn’t worry about gathering any facts beneath the surface.

Yes, and that’s rational. Not only does it not appear anything conspiratorial happened, but also that nothing conspiratorial likely could have happened. On the other hand, you’re the one claiming a conspiracy with only weak evidence, and in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 04:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 474 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Further research on viscoelastic dampers reveals that they are made from polymers which are designed to become viscous under stress, but actually can become liquid under high stress and temperatures, and can also crack at low temperatures when subjected to high impact.
While most are designed to withstand temperatures of 500F long term and 600F short term, at 1800F (jet fuel and other combustibles) they become pure liquid and lose load bearing capacity. Thus the loose joints were only held together by the steel bolts, also heated to 1800F…. gulp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscoelasticity

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=viscoelastic+damper&id=DDC1C8F1DFAC450E2A4C18D60CB5DCD7396A320F&FORM=IQFRBA#x0y0

psik, am I the only one on this also?..... cheese

the first one was actually used in the WTC towers. The second pic is more illustrative of how it works.

[ Edited: 18 February 2012 05:17 AM by Write4U ]
Image Attachments
viscorlastic damper.jpgviscielastic damper.jpg
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 475 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 17 February 2012 03:27 PM
psikeyhackr - 17 February 2012 09:02 AM
Write4U - 16 February 2012 07:41 PM

How can anyone have seperated this into two or three unrelated events? Now that sounds to me like complete denial of physics.

I can stack 50 tons of steel tubes and t-bars on top of a single tube or t-bar with “good weight” distribution and nothing happens. 

Let’s see the video.  LOL

The video shows two towers standing firm with structural integrity and proper weight distribution throughout. Then the video shows an BIG plane (about 350 tons) hitting and penetrating the side of one of the towers, almost completely disappearing, similar to a dum dum bullet penetrating and expanding inside its target.  (Moments later another BIG plane impacting the second tower in basically the same way, but at a slightly different angle)

At cost of structural integrity.

Care to explain where you got that 350 tons?  The plane that hit the north tower was 141 tons.  The maximum take off weight of those planes is 200 tons.

So you can make up whatever you want and then talk about structural integrity.  LOL

If you know so much about structural integrity let’s see you build a physical model that can collapse completely.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 476 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 18 February 2012 04:09 AM

Further research on viscoelastic dampers reveals that they are made from polymers which are designed to become viscous under stress, but actually can become liquid under high stress and temperatures, and can also crack at low temperatures when subjected to high impact.
While most are designed to withstand temperatures of 500F long term and 600F short term, at 1800F (jet fuel and other combustibles) they become pure liquid and lose load bearing capacity. Thus the loose joints were only held together by the steel bolts, also heated to 1800F…. gulp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscoelasticity

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=viscoelastic+damper&id=DDC1C8F1DFAC450E2A4C18D60CB5DCD7396A320F&FORM=IQFRBA#x0y0

psik, am I the only one on this also?..... cheese

the first one was actually used in the WTC towers. The second pic is more illustrative of how it works.

So explain what they had to do with the structural integrity of the building.

Show us where the NIST determined how fires started by the airliner produced 1800F in the towers.

Oh yeah, what about those 350 ton planes?  LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 477 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 18 February 2012 07:52 AM
Write4U - 17 February 2012 03:27 PM
psikeyhackr - 17 February 2012 09:02 AM
Write4U - 16 February 2012 07:41 PM

How can anyone have seperated this into two or three unrelated events? Now that sounds to me like complete denial of physics.

I can stack 50 tons of steel tubes and t-bars on top of a single tube or t-bar with “good weight” distribution and nothing happens. 

Let’s see the video.  LOL

The video shows two towers standing firm with structural integrity and proper weight distribution throughout. Then the video shows an BIG plane (about 350 tons) hitting and penetrating the side of one of the towers, almost completely disappearing, similar to a dum dum bullet penetrating and expanding inside its target.  (Moments later another BIG plane impacting the second tower in basically the same way, but at a slightly different angle)

At cost of structural integrity.

Care to explain where you got that 350 tons?  The plane that hit the north tower was 141 tons.  The maximum take off weight of those planes is 200 tons.

So you can make up whatever you want and then talk about structural integrity.  LOL

If you know so much about structural integrity let’s see you build a physical model that can collapse completely.

psik

Well i read that a fully loaded plane of the type that flew into the towers fully loaded weighs 750,000lb. I estimated some weight loss as you had already mentioned that they did not have full tanks, so I estimated 350 tons. perhaps I was off but from what I read I believe your total weight and kinetic impact are underestimated. I also read and hopefully cited the link to the estimated heat reaching as much as 1800F. I did not just make those assertion up, I got them from wiki and other links that specifically identified those figures with the WTC calamity. Seems there is a lot of conflicting information out there.

As to building a scale model.
But that is the problem isn’t it? We cannot come close to building a scale model without altering the physics. How does one scale down and imitate the effect of a 1800F (or 1200F) firestorm that burns for 15-20 minutes in a confined area (a blow torch?). You cannot scale that down without altering the physics of expansion, softening and melting points of metals? In order to achieve that we would have to replace steel tubes with tubes of a totally different metal. How do you scale down a bolt and what metals do you use for them (soldering flux?)? How do you scale down the polymer dampers (soft plastic?)? How do you scale down the wooden secondary support structures (toothpicks and matchsticks?) How do you scale down the fixtures (doll house furniture?)? How do you scale down electrical wiring and voltage (12volts a/c?) What are the kinetic effects of gravity on massive objects falling (accelerating) several hundred feet and a small object falling a few feet.
How do you scale down a star and still maintain critical mass for a super nova?

I admit my ignorance in physics, and my logic is not based on true knowledge of fact, but it seems to me that to base any analysis of probability and potential by trying to build a detailed scale model is an exercise in futility. You’d end up with an assertion with the same value as mine…. smirk

[ Edited: 18 February 2012 02:49 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 07:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 478 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 18 February 2012 12:02 PM

Well i read that a fully loaded plane of the type that flew into the towers fully loaded weighs 750,000lb. I estimated some weight loss as you had already mentioned that they did not have full tanks, so I estimated 350 tons.

You read it.  It must be true.

Maximum
takeoff weight  

315,000 lb       395,000 lb   350,000 lb   412,000 lb     412,000 lb   450,000 lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

But then it doesn’t occur to you that most planes rarely take off FULLY LOADED.  They don’t put a lot more fuel on the planes than they need to reach their destinations.

So how is it that most sources say the plane the hit the north tower was 141 tons, only 40% of what you say you read and I have never seen that number except from you?  I’m really going to trust what you say about structural integrity even though no one supplies distribution of steel and concrete information but Gregory Urich and his data has an obvious error.

When I first began investigating this I found sources that said the WTC had 7 basement levels and some said it had 6.  I can find people now talking about the buildings being 95% air.  But 350 tons for the weight of the plane is nonsense.

psik

[ Edited: 19 February 2012 10:42 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 479 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 18 February 2012 12:02 PM

As to building a scale model.
But that is the problem isn’t it? We cannot come close to building a scale model without altering the physics.

Physics does not alter.

It is the strength to weight ratios in relation to size that are the problem.  It is called the square-cube law.

If a perfect scale model of the WTC were constructed of the exact same material it would be 100 times as small but one millionth the weight. So it would be 100 times as strong as the real building in relation to its weight.  Consequently if it was the weight of the top of the north tower that crushed everything below it would most likely not behave the same way in the model because the model would be too strong.

That is why the supports in my model are paper.  The paper allows the experimenter to test its strength in relation to the weight it has to support.  But then of course geniuses say, “The WTC wasn’t made of paper.”  The dynamic load still has to use up energy crushing the paper even though the static load capacity is exceeded.  But that makes the dynamic load slow down so there is less energy to crush the next level.

But then we don’t have people specifying the amount of steel on each level of the towers and how much energy would have been required to crush each level of the core.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 10:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 480 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

You just confirmed that in order to build a scale model we would have to change the physical nature of the components of the entire structure and therefore ALL of the physics, not just one approximation of the load bearing capacity. Your paper model is no more scientifically reliable than my logical assumptions.

[ Edited: 19 February 2012 11:03 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
32 of 46
32