Some Calculations requested regarding why the towers upper portion did not slide off

[WildCat]

I've avoided TS because I can't take this level of absurdity. I thought pomeroo was being almost too harsh on him at times, but JC, he's just doing it to drive people crazy. POWDER! a building turned to powder?! Hey I have an idea, the building turned to powder. Marvin Martian used his friggin death ray and turned the damn thing to POWDER when no one was looking. They forgot to edit that out, although the mass hysteria has somehow allowed this little anomoly to go unnoticed by everyone else but him.

Ace also refers to an 8 story high pile of rubble as a "crater". The man is not playing with a full deck, best to either humor him or ignore him.

 

[uk_dave]

And if your truthers are anything like the ones I've been getting lately, they'll just respond by telling you that "Bazant has been debunked!" and then give you that link to that guy who scribbled his garbage all over his paper and pretend that's the end of it.

Just tell them that the debunking has been debunked

 

[Lurker]

Most of the twin towers turned into powder, and that steel which remained macro was thrown about in a radius far outside the footprint. I ask you, how could this happen, "without a horizontal force acting upon them"?

Imagine a beam of steel and apply a moment at each end. Imagine then that each end fails catostropically such that the stored elastic energy of the bent beam is suddenly released. The beam will displace in a horizontal direction.

This is basic engineering concerning buckling and collapse. You can simulate this by taking something with a moderate elastic modulus and bending it between your thumb and forefinger and allowing it to slide off the fingers. Note how the sample flies outwards. Kids learn this trick at an early age. Why didn't you?

Lurker

 

[Alferd_Packer]

There is actually a new Bazant paper out there. I'd post a link to it, but I'm too new here.

Now as to why the towers didn't "slide off" it is simple. Before Marvin Bush left his job at t h security company, a year before 9/11, he snuck into the building and smeared contact cement all over the undersides of the floors.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Pay close attention at 19:46, when a 60+ section of the north facade peels away and heads toward wtc 7.

And if you look really cloesly, you might even see the wires attached to that section where Silverstein is "pulling" it onto WTC 7.

This is called a "Beam" weapon

 

[CurtC]

I've kept my cool up until now, BUT ARE YOU INSANE! POWDER!?!?!? In what world does steel turn into powder in mid air? POWDER?!?! MOSTLY POWDER?!?!

You must have missed that other video, the one showing a tall section of core remaining standing, then falling, leaving a wake of dust. Ace declared that the solid steel core columns were actually turning to dust in mid-air, because they were no longer visible through the dust they left behind. It's pure insanity.

 

[1337m4n]

We don't know how they did it. That doesn't change what we observe. Unless you think the videos of the towers are fake, then the upper portions turned mostly to powder.

Um no. Stop making stuff up without supporting evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I asked some twoofers the other day how blocks of 50,000 and 120,000 tons could somehow slide/fall out of their footprints without a horizontal force acting on them.

"You don't need a horizontal force cuz a chair would fall over" was basically the answer I got.

CHF, you are clearly implying that the towers fell into their footprints. You are deriding "twoofers" for a supposed lack of a mechanical explanation for how mass could "somehow slide/fall out of their footprints without a horizontal force acting on them".

The evidence is overwhelming. The great bulk of surviving tower mass landed well outside the respective footprints. It is gravity-collapse theorists who must supply a mechanical explanation for this. Truthers unanimously agree that some type of explosive(s)/weapon(s) were used to destroy the towers. Whatever had the energy to dissociate all those molecular bonds also had the energy to propel large portions of the walls sideways.

 

[Lurker]

Truthseeker,

I have already posted one mechanism for material being ejected sideways. Why do you ignore this simple and common mechanism?

Lurker

 

[Belz...]

I asked some twoofers the other day how blocks of 50,000 and 120,000 tons could somehow slide/fall out of their footprints without a horizontal force acting on them.

"You don't need a horizontal force cuz a chair would fall over" was basically the answer I got.

Yeah, or "tree". Anything made out of wood, works.

Except Ace, of course:

The correct answer is that the upper portion did not "slide off" because most of it very rapidly turned into powder.

Ace prefers impossible technologies to natural similes.

We don't know how they did it. That doesn't change what we observe.

Actually, it does, because you don't observe what the REST OF THE WORLD observes. Pity that doesn't ring any bells for you.

CHF, you are clearly implying that the towers fell into their footprints.

No, he's not. If you can't interpret what you see in a video correctly, why would we expect you to interpret what you read in a post correctly ?

 

[cmcaulif]

Goodaye guys,

I have actually been debating this issue with someone, its good and formal at the moment but although the collapse is logical to me, he asserts he think that the towers should have arrested on the floors below or slid off!

Now stop laughing I know how stupid that is

http://www.911oz.com/forum/public/viewtopic.php?t=120&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Can someone say like beachnut or mackey or one of you other maths genius lords provide some numbers as to

1) approximate weight of falling mass (wtc 1 and 2)
2) the consequential force once the mass starts to fall
3) the amount of force required to stop it (arrest it) from below
4) the amount of force needed to be applied to one side to force it to 'slide off' (lol)

hahaha
slide off, I know its stupid, just simple logical deducation of weights and size tell me why, but the numbers, even back of the envelope would be good. I actually think (without checking) even at 25 degrees, this is only for a second and once stuff breaks, it breaks. I should not even need to go to these lengths but hey, may as well. Helps me explain it better as well to others away from the net.

It has been discussed at times before so I will look to search the forum as well. If you can PM or even reply in this thread it would be appreciated.

Im not interested in a 'ooo look he said this now!' and post the responses from there in here kind of thread, more so a discussion as to the absurdity of this claim.

Thanks heathens

In the newest paper from Bazant, Le, Benson, and Greening, they calculate the centroid of mass for the falling body, which is probably what you are looking for. Fig 2 on page 20:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

 

[bje]

We don't know how they did it. That doesn't change what we observe. Unless you think the videos of the towers are fake, then the upper portions turned mostly to powder.

Not THAT canard again.

There are NO videos showing the upper portions of either tower "turning to dust."

 

[e^n]

The evidence is overwhelming. The great bulk of surviving tower mass landed well outside the respective footprints.

Prove it, the only debris I see scattered outside the base of the towers seems to be perimeter column sections. There are very few identifiable truss sections and even less core columns. On what basis do you estimate the mass ejected and can you show me your calculations?

 

[nicepants]

We don't know how they did it. That doesn't change what we observe. Unless you think the videos of the towers are fake, then the upper portions turned mostly to powder.

Source for this claim?

 

[twinstead]

Please don't get truthseeker1234 started. That's all we need is another 50 page thread about how only he is able to see what really happened during the collapse, and all the experts and non-experts alike who watched the same videos are totally wrong (or worse, 'in on it')

 

[HeyLeroy]

Truthseeker1234, I've asked you this before but I forget whether you answered or not. Was Chuck Steven Jones lying when he disputed Woods?

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.
source

 

[GlennB]

Truthseeker1234, I've asked you this before but I forget whether you answered or not. Was Chuck Steven Jones lying when he disputed Woods?

And there's the quandry, in a nutshell.

Dealing with 9/11 Truthers is like getting toothpaste back in the tube. There's always another squirm going on over there.

It fell in its footprint??? CD !!!
It didn't fall in its footprint??? CD !!!

<etc etc, even unto the end of the world>

 

[Reality Believer]

And there's the quandry, in a nutshell.

Dealing with 9/11 Truthers is like getting toothpaste back in the tube. There's always another squirm going on over there.

It fell in its footprint??? CD !!!
It didn't fall in its footprint??? CD !!!

<etc etc, even unto the end of the world>

Yep, the red herring gets pretty deep sometimes. Instead of attempting to countering the argument. I think it would be appropriate to call the logical fallacy like it is and say NEXT.

 

[William Rea]

Goodaye guys,

I have actually been debating this issue with someone, its good and formal at the moment but although the collapse is logical to me, he asserts he think that the towers should have arrested on the floors below or slid off!

Now stop laughing I know how stupid that is

http://www.911oz.com/forum/public/viewtopic.php?t=120&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Can someone say like beachnut or mackey or one of you other maths genius lords provide some numbers as to

1) approximate weight of falling mass (wtc 1 and 2)
2) the consequential force once the mass starts to fall
3) the amount of force required to stop it (arrest it) from below
4) the amount of force needed to be applied to one side to force it to 'slide off' (lol)

hahaha
slide off, I know its stupid, just simple logical deducation of weights and size tell me why, but the numbers, even back of the envelope would be good. I actually think (without checking) even at 25 degrees, this is only for a second and once stuff breaks, it breaks. I should not even need to go to these lengths but hey, may as well. Helps me explain it better as well to others away from the net.

It has been discussed at times before so I will look to search the forum as well. If you can PM or even reply in this thread it would be appreciated.

Im not interested in a 'ooo look he said this now!' and post the responses from there in here kind of thread, more so a discussion as to the absurdity of this claim.

Thanks heathens

Since you admit you don't have the maths and analysis etc (apart from some back of the envelope stuff) why do you conclude that you KNOW that the argument is logical and that the other explanation is stupid?

Can you describe the process of thinking (without checking)?

I am sitting here in awe of how you managed to make it this far without being torn apart by the logic hounds of JREF. Silly me, you're "skeptic" aren't you.

 

[CHF]

CHF, you are clearly implying that the towers fell into their footprints.

No, I'm saying that the top sections of the towers had nowhere to go but down when the collapse started.