9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

[Newtons Bit]

I did answer them. Here's what I said since you cannot follow it.

Yes, cross-bracing in the cores at 7th story and lower. No, the ones in the picture were not removed during construction. Those are permanent.

Yes, the floors had different slabs and of course different joists held it up. It is however one continuously.

 

[R.Mackey]

Here is the post where Mackey says the the cores were cross braced by the floor assemblies.

Ryan, I've asked you directly, and you've never answered.

Did the cores have their own independent flooring systems?

Were the cross braces, as shown in Frank's picture, removed after construction?

Those are both yes/no questions.

Liar, here is your picture:

And here is Dr. Greenings:

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/visibility911/wtc4small.jpg

Dr. Greening's picture shows cross bracing low in the core, well away from the impact floors. Your picture shows kangaroo cranes. I have never before today seen Dr. Greening's picture.

What Dr. Greening's picture shows was not removed, ever, and is irrelevant for purposes of collapse initiation.

Back on Ignore you go. It's a pity that even though I haven't had any contact with you whatsoever for months, you still harbor the same monomaniacal idiocy. Seek help, I beg you.

 

[Gravy]

The cross bracing in the Greening photo is on the exterior columns, below grade.

 

[R.Mackey]

Thanks for that correction. Like I said, I had never seen that picture before. That fact pretty much guarantees that it isn't what Ace thought he was talking about.

In any event, it clearly has nothing to do with the core in the impact floors.

 

[Gravy]

The vast overwhelming majority of reports of explosions by news networks on 9/11 refer to either one of the aircraft impacts or one of the building collapses.

Watching the clips in context, this is too often painfully obvious.

The collapses were almost universally described as "huge explosions".

-Gumboot

Actually, only 11% of the over 700 descriptions of the collapses that I've gathered describe them as explosions or like explosions. The conspiracists take that 11% out of context and present it as if it's the majority.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Thanks for that correction. Like I said, I had never seen that picture before. That fact pretty much guarantees that it isn't what Ace thought he was talking about.

In any event, it clearly has nothing to do with the core in the impact floors.

Originally, we were discussing the "collapses". Not "collapse initiation". I've never been particularly interested in "collapse initiation". I don't think those upper parts would "collapse" under fires and that kind of damage, but I don't care. The interesting part is the part NIST ignored:

How in hell does a collapse cause the building to explode into powder?

You were trying to convince me that the cores were not braced, except by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit on this very thread has now confirmed that the cores had their own independent flooring (IE CROSS BRACING) system.

You were trying to convince me that the cores were braced only by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit agrees with me, although I was trying to get a simple yes or no answer out of him. Or you. Or anyone.

Fetzer might be wrong on some points. But he's right about one thing. There is a special place in hell reserved for you guys.

 

[Thunder]

If Truthseeker has his way, after the "revolution", all JREFers will be rounded up and sent to a concentration camp for our "crimes".

 

[stateofgrace]

There is a special place in hell reserved for you guys.

Including this guy Ace?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jujigatami
Quote:
Ace, TS, or whatever you call yourself,

Could you please explain to me how the NWO, Government, or whoever you think made these videos also somehow implanted the images of 2 planes hitting the WTC in to my EYEBALLS!

See, I was there, and I personally witnessed both planes hitting the buildings.

I saw everything, EVERYTHING!

I saw it firsthand, not on video, not by description after the fact. I saw BOTH PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS!!!

Please explain how I saw what you say didn't happen.

Please, this I gotta hear.

Originally Posted by jujigatami
Quote:
Forget that, he can't be asked to explain what people didn't see. I just want him to explain what I did see.

I was a few hundred yards from WTC1 walking towards it when the first plane hit. I looked up when I heard an incredibly loud jet engine sound a second or two before the plane hit. It was so loud that the ground was vibrating and I actually felt the sound. Of course the crash and resulting explosion was even louder, but I'll never forget the sound of the jet. Its what made me look up. Then there it was, an American Airlines jet flying full speed in to the north tower.

So please tell me Ace, how did the big bad NWO not only implant images in to my eyeball, but also have the accompanying sound effects so perfectly staged?

Whom you have failed to recognise, failed to acknowledge.

I will not respond in kind to your insults, you do not deserve it , you deserve nothing but condemnation and contempt, this you have worked for and this you will receive.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Originally, we were discussing the "collapses". Not "collapse initiation". I've never been particularly interested in "collapse initiation". I don't think those upper parts would "collapse" under fires and that kind of damage, but I don't care. The interesting part is the part NIST ignored:

How in hell does a collapse cause the building to explode into powder?

You were trying to convince me that the cores were not braced, except by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit on this very thread has now confirmed that the cores had their own independent flooring (IE CROSS BRACING) system.

You were trying to convince me that the cores were braced only by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit agrees with me, although I was trying to get a simple yes or no answer out of him. Or you. Or anyone.

Fetzer might be wrong on some points. But he's right about one thing. There is a special place in hell reserved for you guys.

I completly disagree with you. Now take this statement out of context. The only place in the building that had cross-bracing was on the seven stories and LOWER.

"independent flooring (IE CROSS BRACING) "!?!?? How the hell did you get that from what I said. I said that they were continuous flooring. How is it that a floor slab means cross-bracing? You're not even taking what I said out of context, you're making stuff up. Do not alter your perception of the universe such that I agreed with what you said. Let me restate what it really is IT IS THE SAME FLOORING SYSTEM IT JUST HAS A THICKER STURDIER SLAB. Is that clear enough for you? Go read a freaking book and get a clue.

This is case and point in WHY the truth movement exists. You can't understand anything! Your perception of how it should be morphs what people say into what you think they should be saying. GET HELP!

 

[gumboot]

Actually, only 11% of the over 700 descriptions of the collapses that I've gathered describe them as explosions or like explosions. The conspiracists take that 11% out of context and present it as if it's the majority.

Are they all live news broadcast from the day, or post event interviews?

-Gumboot

 

[Slayhamlet]

Originally, we were discussing the "collapses". Not "collapse initiation". I've never been particularly interested in "collapse initiation". I don't think those upper parts would "collapse" under fires and that kind of damage, but I don't care. The interesting part is the part NIST ignored:

How in hell does a collapse cause the building to explode into powder?

You were trying to convince me that the cores were not braced, except by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit on this very thread has now confirmed that the cores had their own independent flooring (IE CROSS BRACING) system.

You were trying to convince me that the cores were braced only by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit agrees with me, although I was trying to get a simple yes or no answer out of him. Or you. Or anyone.

No he doesn't agree with you. You consistently show a lack of understanding of what those with expertise, whether it be NIST or R. Mackey or Newtons Bit, are trying to explain to you. You consistently take their words out of context and twist them into what you want to hear. You consistently fail to realize that your own silly assumptions do not apply to the real world. Knowing these tendencies of yours, why should any of them feel obliged to even respond to you in the first place?

Fetzer might be wrong on some points. But he's right about one thing. There is a special place in hell reserved for you guys.

And there is a special padded cell in an institution reserved for you, Ace.

You may not have realized it yet, but you are the laughingstock of the "Truth" movement. Nobody takes you seriously. Nobody. Not even your fellow "Truthers". Nuts call you a nut. Other nuts call you a disinfo agent. Why is that, Ace? Why have you so spectacularly failed to convince anyone of your bizarre, outlandish theories? Could it be because they are contradicted by a mountain of evidence? Could it be because you're a simpleton whose pretensions to scientific knowledge and reasoning are an obvious farce?

You are a sad, silly little man who will not stop pretending that his fantasies are worthy of reality's consideration. Please stick to what you're good at: making [rule 8]y musical scores for kiddie-movies.

 

[Corsair 115]

How in hell does a collapse cause the building to explode into powder?

There was a huge, stories-high pile of debris afterwards. That's hardly powder. The buildings didn't explode either, at least not in the way most folks would think of that term. Besides, where are the distinctive sounds associated with the cutting charges used to demolish building in controlled demolitions? You can't hide those sounds, anyone within blocks can easily distinguish them.

 

[pomeroo]

Originally, we were discussing the "collapses". Not "collapse initiation". I've never been particularly interested in "collapse initiation". I don't think those upper parts would "collapse" under fires and that kind of damage, but I don't care. The interesting part is the part NIST ignored:

How in hell does a collapse cause the building to explode into powder?

Ace, you were proved to be lying about your imaginary "dustification," remember?

You were trying to convince me that the cores were not braced, except by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit on this very thread has now confirmed that the cores had their own independent flooring (IE CROSS BRACING) system.

You were trying to convince me that the cores were braced only by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit agrees with me, although I was trying to get a simple yes or no answer out of him. Or you. Or anyone.

Fetzer might be wrong on some points. But he's right about one thing. There is a special place in hell reserved for you guys.

Fetzer is one of those rare individuals who, like you, manages to be wrong all the time.

Why should rationalists go to hell for presenting real evidence and reasoning from it? Where should conspiracy liars who refuse to abandon a baseless, deranged fantasy end up?

 

[R.Mackey]

I completly disagree with you. Now take this statement out of context. The only place in the building that had cross-bracing was on the seven stories and LOWER.

For complete accuracy, that's not quite true. There was also cross bracing on the mechanical and atrium floors, and the hat truss could be considered cross-bracing as well. Remember the two windowless bands approximately 1/3 and 2/3 of the way up the structure? Mechanical floors. Those had cross-bracing in the core as well.

But I've already explained this (with full references) to Ace, he already knows this, he's continued to whine about how I'm "lying" and have a spot reserved for me in Hades or Gehenna or whatever, and the entire board has already had our laughs at him. Months ago. Thread is here. Enjoy.

 

[GregoryUrich]

For complete accuracy, that's not quite true. There was also cross bracing on the mechanical and atrium floors, and the hat truss could be considered cross-bracing as well. Remember the two windowless bands approximately 1/3 and 2/3 of the way up the structure? Mechanical floors. Those had cross-bracing in the core as well.

But I've already explained this (with full references) to Ace, he already knows this, he's continued to whine about how I'm "lying" and have a spot reserved for me in Hades or Gehenna or whatever, and the entire board has already had our laughs at him. Months ago. Thread is here. Enjoy.

I think Truthseeker has a somewhat different vocabulary which contributes to the difficulty of understanding each other. When he says "cross bracing", I believe he means horizontal members (i.e. framed floors), which to my knowledge everyone agrees existed in the core. I believe the "structural" people here think of "cross bracing" as diagonal bracing.

Truthseeker, as one who is constantly debating Mr. Mackey on a number of issues, I have never seen him misrepresent evidence or lie on any occasion

 

[tsig]

Originally, we were discussing the "collapses". Not "collapse initiation". I've never been particularly interested in "collapse initiation". I don't think those upper parts would "collapse" under fires and that kind of damage, but I don't care. The interesting part is the part NIST ignored:

How in hell does a collapse cause the building to explode into powder?

You were trying to convince me that the cores were not braced, except by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit on this very thread has now confirmed that the cores had their own independent flooring (IE CROSS BRACING) system.

You were trying to convince me that the cores were braced only by the main floor assemblies. Newton's bit agrees with me, although I was trying to get a simple yes or no answer out of him. Or you. Or anyone.

Fetzer might be wrong on some points. But he's right about one thing. There is a special place in hell reserved for you guys.

That's where the good barbaque is

 

[gumboot]

I believe he means horizontal members (i.e. framed floors), which to my knowledge everyone agrees existed in the core.

Although had there not been any floors in the core, it would have made for grand entertainment getting out of the elevator.

Like one of those military officer selection problems...

There's four of you in a lift. You have six planks of wood, two lengths of rope, a 44 gallon drum, and three briefcases. You have fifteen minutes to get from the elevator door to outside the core with all three briefcases. If you slip you (obviously) fall to your death.

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

There is a special place in hell reserved for you guys.

Liars go to Hell, too, Ace.

I'll be waiting.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Bazant's latest paper insists that 80% of the total mass hit the bedrock traveling at approximately 47m/s. That is > 4x10^11 Joules of energy, or 25,000 times the energy for a 2.1 Richter scale quake as measured at the LDEO.

Since you vectored this one into an inappropriate thread, I though it was worth another look. Are you suggesting here that Bazant overestimated the mass by some amount to get this result? If so, let me point out that your mass estimate is of the order of half of Bazant's, which would give something like 12,500 times the seismic energy measured if your analysis is valid. What is your rationale for insisting that 99.996% energy loss is "nonsense" but 99.992% energy loss is entirely reasonable?

Alternatively, if you're suggesting an overestimate of the impact velocity, can you explain how this is consistent with the CD theory, which predicts a higher impact velocity than simple fire-related structural collapse?

If you're trying to make some other point here, could you please clarify what it is?

Dave

 

[GregoryUrich]

Since you vectored this one into an inappropriate thread, I though it was worth another look. Are you suggesting here that Bazant overestimated the mass by some amount to get this result? If so, let me point out that your mass estimate is of the order of half of Bazant's, which would give something like 12,500 times the seismic energy measured if your analysis is valid. What is your rationale for insisting that 99.996% energy loss is "nonsense" but 99.992% energy loss is entirely reasonable?

Alternatively, if you're suggesting an overestimate of the impact velocity, can you explain how this is consistent with the CD theory, which predicts a higher impact velocity than simple fire-related structural collapse?

If you're trying to make some other point here, could you please clarify what it is?

Dave

I have never suggested that 99.992% energy loss is reasonable. Please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I have no idea how efficiently a large compacted mass impacting the bedrock transfers KE to seimic energy. Nonetheless I cannot believe that only 0.004% of KE is transferred.

I am not yet supporting the CD theory but I am critical of Bazant's explanation. The seismic energy issue indicates that Bazant's amount of ejected debris and/or velocity are in error.

I'm not sure how my post is off topic. It is physics. I am not an expert. It is perfectly relevant in regards to that non-experts are capable of pointing out valid issues with physical explanations given by experts.