33 of 51
33
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 20 February 2012 06:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 481 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6114
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 19 February 2012 07:58 AM
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

ok, did more checking on TOW of 767s and it appears I was off considerably in my total weight estimate (I swear I read it elsewhere). But then I never claimed that the impact was the cause for the collaps, altough I am sure at least 2 levels must have been severely damaged by the size and kinetic impact of those planes. Even 150-200 tons flying at a few hundred miles p/hr will make a pretty good dent even into a building with steel framework. In fact the studies show that the building withstood the initial impact remarkably well, which would rule out sloppy workmanship. But I have always maintained that the subsequent fires which started immediately after impact were the primary source of the actual collapse. That seems to be confirmed below.

From wiki

Attacks
See also: Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks
The flight paths of the four hijacked planes used in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001
Early on the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers took control of four commercial airliners (two Boeing 757s and two Boeing 767s) en route to San Francisco or Los Angeles after takeoffs from Boston, Massachusetts, Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.[3] Planes with long flights were intentionally selected for hijacking because they would be heavily fueled.[4]
Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure.[22] The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175.[22] The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. after burning for 102 minutes.[22] When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building’s structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m.

A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.[266][267]
The director of the original investigation stated that, “the towers really did amazingly well. The terrorist aircraft didn’t bring the buildings down; it was the fire which followed. It was proven that you could take out two thirds of the columns in a tower and the building would still stand.”[268] The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns causing the exterior columns to bow inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse. Additionally, the report found the towers’ stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide adequate emergency escape for people above the impact zones.[269] NIST concluded that uncontrolled fires in 7 WTC caused floor beams and girders to heat and subsequently “caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down”.[264]

  (red highlights mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

psik, I am glad you challenged me on facts and have learned much in this exchange…. smile

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2012 07:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 482 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
citizenschallenge.pm - 17 February 2012 06:10 PM

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?

I’m even more lost than that. What the hell are you talking about?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2012 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 483 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

Not only does it not appear anything conspiratorial happened, but also that nothing conspiratorial likely could have happened.

You speak like a cigarette smoking alcoholic condemning drug use.

All sorts of “coincidences” appear to support conspiracy, but your ace in the hole seems to be that it would be so difficult to pull off that it must be unlikely, therefore impossible(?), therefore unworthy of any sort of legitimate investigation.

Cass Sunstein would be proud. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#.22Conspiracy_Theories.22_and_government_infiltration

[ Edited: 20 February 2012 09:53 PM by LanceThruster ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2012 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 484 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6114
Joined  2009-02-26
LanceThruster - 20 February 2012 07:52 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 17 February 2012 06:10 PM

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?

I’m even more lost than that. What the hell are you talking about?

CC, I believe his post was in response someone else’ post and not mine.

Lance, it would help if in the quote you could name of the originator. Especially when there are several participants. It’s hard to keep track of who said what.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2012 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 485 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

THX W4U.

I was just pasting the relavent quote I was addressing so as to not waste bandwidth. When I quote in the traditional way, I get all the rest of the post and have to delete large blocks to retain what I want (often screwing up the formatting in the process).

Write4U - 20 February 2012 08:24 PM
LanceThruster - 20 February 2012 07:52 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 17 February 2012 06:10 PM

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?

I’m even more lost than that. What the hell are you talking about?

CC, I believe his post was in response someone else’ post and not mine.

Lance, it would help if in the quote you could name of the originator. Especially when there are several participants. It’s hard to keep track of who said what.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2012 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 486 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
LanceThruster - 20 February 2012 07:58 PM

Not only does it not appear anything conspiratorial happened, but also that nothing conspiratorial likely could have happened.

You speak like a cigarette smoking alcoholic condemning drug use.

All sorts of “coincidences” appear to support conspiracy, but your ace in the hole seems to be that it would be so difficult to pull off that it must be unlikely, therefore impossible(?), therefore unworthy of any sort of legitimate investigation.

Not impossible, but yes, very unlikely and unworthy of investigation. I don’t get your analogy

Cass Sunstein would be proud. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#.22Conspiracy_Theories.22_and_government_infiltration

What’s your point?

 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: 21 February 2012 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 487 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
domokato - 21 February 2012 11:14 AM

What’s your point?

That you misuse the word conspiracy at every turn.

The official narrative claims *conspiracy*. You argue about the unlikelyhood of conspiracy as you buy into the government’s claim of conspiracy.

Scary Mooslims w/ box cutters…must be true.

A whole host of co-inky-dinks re: what actually went down that day (particularly with regard to who stands to benefit in the aftermath - and who was in control of ascertaining the facts)...Move along. Nothing to see here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2012 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 488 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
LanceThruster - 21 February 2012 11:23 AM
domokato - 21 February 2012 11:14 AM

What’s your point?

That you misuse the word conspiracy at every turn.

The official narrative claims *conspiracy*. You argue about the unlikelyhood of conspiracy as you buy into the government’s claim of conspiracy.

Like I said before, you know which conspiracy we’re talking about. Some conspiracy theories have more merit than others, i.e. the ones that have evidence behind them, motives, and admissions of guilt.

 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: 21 February 2012 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 489 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 20 February 2012 06:55 AM

A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.

Now what does that mean by COLUMN TEMPERATURES?

What if the columns were ONE INCH THICK STEEL?  Wouldn’t that mean the CORE of the column would have to reach that temperature?  Wouldn’t that mean heat would have to conduct i/2 an inch into the steel?  But it would not just conduct in, it would conduct up and down the column.  Wasn’t each column section 36 feet long?  Wasn’t the horizontal steel on each level of the core 2 1/2 as long as the vertical steel.

But then we are not told the tons of steel on every level within 5 levels of the impact.

So how could we know the steel could rise to that temperature in the available time.

Purdue said if.  IF IS NOT AN EXPLANATION.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2012 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 490 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6114
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 21 February 2012 11:47 AM
Write4U - 20 February 2012 06:55 AM

A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.

Now what does that mean by COLUMN TEMPERATURES?

That if the columns were ONE INCH THICK STEEL?  Wouldn’t that mean the CORE of the column would have to reach that temperature?  Wouldn’t that mean heat would have to conduct i/2 an inch into the steel?  But it would not just conduct in, it would conduct up and down the column.  Wasn’t each column section 36 feet long?  Wasn’t the horizontal steel on each level of the core 2 1/2 as long as the vertical steel.

But then we are not told the tons of steel on every level within 5 levels of the impact.

So how could we know the steel could rise to that temperature in the available time.

Purdue said if.  IF IS NOT AN EXPLANATION.

psik

I don’t think Purdue tried to offer an explanation of what happened., They did a study of a single factor , the structural heat limits of the towers.
Are you questioning the conclusions? Talk to Purdue. I am sure that they knew the dimensions of these columns and came to their conclusions based on facts. Else you may well go to wiki and find the melting and softening temps of steel. These were studies specifically for the materials used in the towers. They did not address the actual on-site heat factors, because that was not the focus of their study.

True, IF is not an explanation in itself, Purdue did not try to explain anything. They did a study of structural limits of materials used in the towers, their conclusion was that @ 500-700C the materials in the structure would fail. And from different studies by others we have learned that temperatures did indeed exceed 500-700C for an extended period of time.

One can logically conclude that if one study shows structural heat limits and and a seperate study shows generated heat exceeding those structural limits, plus indisputable visual evidence, we can come to a logical conclusion that this in fact what happened. The fact that these numbers were arrived at independently prevents collusion to fix outcomes.

edit: psik, your insistence on the unavailability of materials used, is bizarre. All the materials, except those which completely evaporated in the fires were available in the wreckage. The steel tubes did not melt into a solid clump of unidentifiable metal. Think about it. All pertinent information was available and retrievable from the wreckage.

[ Edited: 21 February 2012 05:54 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: 21 February 2012 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 491 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

domokato sez “Some conspiracy theories have more merit than others”...

... so it must be true

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2012 05:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 492 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6114
Joined  2009-02-26
LanceThruster - 21 February 2012 05:13 PM

domokato sez “Some conspiracy theories have more merit than others”...

... so it must be true

Where is your additional information that would dispute the findings of the investigations and physical explanations offered by a host of reliable independent sources? Vague suspicions are not evidence. As a skeptic yourself, don’t you trust the scientific evidence, in favor of rumors?
Show me evidence of an unusual sequence of events and then we might consider a possible secondary conspiracy. Stock market prices or sending the Saudi royals home in a hurry does nothing to alter the physical facts which support the sequential destruction as it appears to have happened by consensus of the investigators which had opportunity to examine the wreckage.

[ Edited: 21 February 2012 05:48 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: 21 February 2012 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 493 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
LanceThruster - 21 February 2012 05:13 PM

domokato sez “Some conspiracy theories have more merit than others”...

... so it must be true

I didn’t say anything about truth. It is simply more rational to believe the theory that matches the evidence the closest.

 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: 22 February 2012 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 494 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 21 February 2012 03:50 PM

I don’t think Purdue tried to offer an explanation of what happened., They did a study of a single factor , the structural heat limits of the towers.
Are you questioning the conclusions? Talk to Purdue. I am sure that they knew the dimensions of these columns and came to their conclusions based on facts. Else you may well go to wiki and find the melting and softening temps of steel. These were studies specifically for the materials used in the towers. They did not address the actual on-site heat factors, because that was not the focus of their study.

True, IF is not an explanation in itself, Purdue did not try to explain anything. They did a study of structural limits of materials used in the towers, their conclusion was that @ 500-700C the materials in the structure would fail. And from different studies by others we have learned that temperatures did indeed exceed 500-700C for an extended period of time.

One can logically conclude that if one study shows structural heat limits and and a seperate study shows generated heat exceeding those structural limits, plus indisputable visual evidence, we can come to a logical conclusion that this in fact what happened. The fact that these numbers were arrived at independently prevents collusion to fix outcomes.

edit: psik, your insistence on the unavailability of materials used, is bizarre. All the materials, except those which completely evaporated in the fires were available in the wreckage. The steel tubes did not melt into a solid clump of unidentifiable metal. Think about it. All pertinent information was available and retrievable from the wreckage.

I emailed three people at Purdue.  Chris Hoffman told me to email Prof. Sozen who I had already sent a request to.  Sozen does not respond.  You believers all fall back on the same thing.  Trust in AUTHORITY that you have already put your FAITH in.

This is grade school physics why don’t you understand it for yourself and expect AUTHORITY to give you complete information?

Suppose you were melting butter in a skillet.  The temperature of the skillet matters but the quantity of butter matters in relation to the time it takes to melt.  So why don’t you expect to be told the quantity of steel for it to reach a temperature to weaken?  Why should we even have to ask?  It is an insult to not be told from the beginning.  Like they have the attitude, “Believe what we tell you because we say so.”

Considering how many fires have burned for so long in other skyscrapers which did not come down this is absurd.

You said the plane was 350 tons and then want to talk about someone being bizarre!!!

I didn’t make this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnXTrw88P4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyQk941tXQ

You don’t investigate anything worth a damn and then presume you have relevant opinions.

psik

[ Edited: 22 February 2012 06:29 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2012 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 495 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

Write4U sez—- “...the physical facts which support the sequential destruction as it appears to have happened by consensus of the investigators which had opportunity to examine the wreckage.”

from: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_11.htm

In direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol, the WTC debris pile was virtually locked down and illegally cleared of all pertinent evidence. No FEMA, industry experts, fire/arson investigators, nor any structural engineers were allowed to gather evidence for later laboratory investigation. They were given limited access to walk around segments of ground zero, to observe and take notes on the debris pile. But to suggest that this cursory review was sufficient examination to comprehensively detail the reason for the Towers’ collapse, or to lucidly comment on perhaps the greatest crime in our nation’s history, is scientifically absurd.

In fact, this is why all the NIST, Popular Mechanics and FEMA investigations used only computer models to confirm their collapse hypotheses. They had no source material to work from. Instead, in direct contradiction of standard scientific methodology, these computer model investigations worked from a conclusion first approach; i.e. they were convinced the towers were felled from fire and airplane damage, so they worked backwards through the facts to create computer models that would support their assumed conclusion. This is not entirely their fault. They were forced into this methodology because the steel beams, and the story they would have told, were immediately shipped off to China and India where they were melted down and promptly recycled. For a peer-written critique of these investigations, go here. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690

This story of evidence destruction and mishandling was reported in the New York Daily News in the early winter of 2002. And it so enraged the editor of the country’s leading Fire Fighting Industry trade journal that he tried to get the unsupervised cleanup to be stopped. He failed and wrote a scathing article in his journal detailing the operation. “Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.” Again, it is key to remember that because of the clearing of the WTC site, all subsequent ‘official investigations’ into the collapse of the Towers depended not upon hard physical evidence to build their case, but upon theoretical computer modeling assigned to legitimize the working conclusion that the buildings were felled by fire and plane impact.

 

Profile
 
 
   
33 of 51
33