Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[Humanoid]

One minor point: Why bother assuming the banking was intentional?
It doesn't really matter one way or another whether they banked on purpose, or merely because they were poor pilots.

I confess to not looking over your numbers. I'm feeling too lazy right now.

Why bother qualifying your point as "minor", when obviously the "minor" point attracted more of your attention to any of the substance of what I was getting at.

I confess to simply saying what I feel like, even if it doesn't comply to your rules of human interaction.

However I think we can agree that the banking would have had an effect.

IF it were intentional and planned, then from there various reasons could be assumed as to why? Spread the damage over more floors perhaps - what would be the difference in forces between a plane simply slamming into a building as opposed to corkscrewing? And further could a building be designed to in some way allow for the forces caused by an intentional cork-screw impact, knowing that such tactics are likely to be employed?

However that is just an IF. It's only a minor point.

 

[lapman]

I don't think the roll rates were really enough to make much difference.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Care to tell me what a 175 ton airplane has to do with a 500,000 ton building? Look up "strawman fallacy". Dip [rule 10]

What figures have you been using for the weight of the planes and fuel and that hit WTC 1 & 2 and the towers themselves?

psik

 

[Humanoid]

I don't think the roll rates were really enough to make much difference.

Probably not, I know only simply classical physics so all the fancy stuff goes over my head.

I was just thinking, the wings and engines probably weigh a few tonnes in themselves, instead of just slicing through the building the rotation could have caused them to - *searching for a better term* carve? If that makes sense. In addition to cutting through the building a rotation would add an amount of angular momentum to the structures it passed through, possibly throwing engine and wing debris up and down causing more damage to the horizontal beams than if the jet were to slice through horizontally?

In fact now I come to think of it, didn't the structure collapse because the horizontal supports were compromised? In that case then its probably not so much the roll rate as the actual angle of penetration... So maybe it is a small point of little interest.

Times like this I wish I knew just a little more physics!

 

[DGM]

What figures have you been using for the weight of the planes and fuel and that hit WTC 1 & 2 and the towers themselves?

psik

The ones that are spelled out in the NIST report. You've been directed to them several times. What does that have to do with the question? (More specifically the mass of each object).

 

[lapman]

Probably not, I know only simply classical physics so all the fancy stuff goes over my head.

I was just thinking, the wings and engines probably weigh a few tonnes in themselves, instead of just slicing through the building the rotation could have caused them to - *searching for a better term* carve? If that makes sense. In addition to cutting through the building a rotation would add an amount of angular momentum to the structures it passed through, possibly throwing engine and wing debris up and down causing more damage to the horizontal beams than if the jet were to slice through horizontally?

In fact now I come to think of it, didn't the structure collapse because the horizontal supports were compromised? In that case then its probably not so much the roll rate as the actual angle of penetration... So maybe it is a small point of little interest.

Times like this I wish I knew just a little more physics!

It makes sense. However the roll rates didn't look like there would have been enough vertical momentum to do much extra damage.

 

[gumboot]

The primary significance of the aircraft being in a bank is that it spread the fuel load over more floors thus starting fires on more floors.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I have already pointed out an absurdity in Urich's data. But even more absurd is that most of the engineering schools in the US haven't come up with such info. Why is one man in Sweden doing this? MIT students were doing this in 1970.

...

psik

The data is from NIST's SAP2000 model which is the best data we are ever going to get. I think you should read the entire article to get a general sense of whether my work is reliable or not. Before you call the discrepancy you have identified "an absurdity", you might want to calculate the effect of those values being erroneous. I think you will find that if the values are in fact incorrect, the effect on the mass distribution is << 1%. Also, check out the core column dimensions on Lon Waters site. If you can pinpoint what is wrong, I'll glady correct my calculation.

Actually, NIST did do this work in their SAP2000 model, unfortunately they didn't publish the results in the manner you would find most useful.

I understand your frustration that this has not been better explained by the official investigations. Sometimes it takes people asking questions to get answers that are satisfactory.

 

[X]

Why bother qualifying your point as "minor", when obviously the "minor" point attracted more of your attention to any of the substance of what I was getting at.

I confess to simply saying what I feel like, even if it doesn't comply to your rules of human interaction.

However I think we can agree that the banking would have had an effect.

IF it were intentional and planned, then from there various reasons could be assumed as to why? Spread the damage over more floors perhaps - what would be the difference in forces between a plane simply slamming into a building as opposed to corkscrewing? And further could a building be designed to in some way allow for the forces caused by an intentional cork-screw impact, knowing that such tactics are likely to be employed?

However that is just an IF. It's only a minor point.

I pointed it out because it seemed like something certain members here (partial to conspiracy theories) might leap upon and try to use against your argument.

I meant no offense by my admission of not checking your numbers.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The data is from NIST's SAP2000 model which is the best data we are ever going to get. I think you should read the entire article to get a general sense of whether my work is reliable or not. Before you call the discrepancy you have identified "an absurdity", you might want to calculate the effect of those values being erroneous. I think you will find that if the values are in fact incorrect, the effect on the mass distribution is << 1%. Also, check out the core column dimensions on Lon Waters site. If you can pinpoint what is wrong, I'll glady correct my calculation.

Sometimes it takes people asking questions to get answers that are satisfactory.

The trouble is when it is necessary to do that people are probably trying to ******** you. I find it astounding that this business has dragged on this long. It should have been solved in a about year.

Another thing about your data is the weights of the perimeter columns. NIST says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels. Since there should have been 34 levels of wall panels up the side of the buildings shouldn't a lot of levels in sequence have had the same tonnage of perimeter columns? I haven't found where the NIST says the wall panels transitioned from one ksi grade to the next. And I have only seen one specification for the weight of those things, 22 tons. There should be 12 different weights.

psik

Please remember rule 10 and do not try to circumvent it by mis-spelling.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Librarylady

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yes. You've crossed over from stupidity into outright incoherence. Firstly, what makes you think that your fantasy tower made from wooden blocks has any relation to reality? Your suggestion that the bottom 10 floors weigh 11 times as much as the top 10 floors is far less realistice than the approximation that they all weigh the same,

Dave

That fantasy must be pretty real to you considering that I never said anything about the blocks being wood. And the blocks aren't just about the FLOOR. It is all of the steel in the core and perimeter columns that must support the LEVELS above. The core column data by Lon Waters that G.Urich just told me about demonstrates quite dramatically how much the amount of steel changes from the basements to the top.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

The ones that are spelled out in the NIST report. You've been directed to them several times. What does that have to do with the question? (More specifically the mass of each object).

Well I am not going to memorize those numbers in the NIST report. The 175 and 500,000 are close enough. I just make a point of remembering that they say one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9 because it is so ridiculous considering that they never specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

psik

 

[GregoryUrich]

The trouble is when it is necessary to do that people are probably trying to ******** you. I find it astounding that this business has dragged on this long. It should have been solved in a about year.

Another thing about your data is the weights of the perimeter columns. NIST says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels. Since there should have been 34 levels of wall panels up the side of the buildings shouldn't a lot of levels in sequence have had the same tonnage of perimeter columns? I haven't found where the NIST says the wall panels transitioned from one ksi grade to the next. And I have only seen one specification for the weight of those things, 22 tons. There should be 12 different weights.

psik

To simplify the whole matter. The columns were heavier lower down and lighter higher up. We know some dimensions of the exterior columns given by NIST and we know the total weight from the original steel orders. A linear approximation is reasonable except near the top of the building. The difference between 12 transitions and the linear approximation is not very significant considering that the exterior columns had a load capacity that was 5 times the actual load.

Of course the calculation could be refined, but I believe the assumptions are close enough to permit reasonable analyses of overload, momentum transfer, conservation of energy and fall-time analyses of the type that others such as Ross, Greening, Kuttler, and Bazant have been working on. I have looked pretty carefully at all these analyses and they all have simplifying assumptions. Ross and Kuttler have egregious errors and the Bazant "simple analysis" has egregious omissions. Nonetheless, I have redone the calculations myself and when the correct mass values and steel dimensions are used, they don't change the results all that much. When the simplifying assumptions are refined and omissions added the result indicates collapse continuation even when retaining the most optimistic assumption of coaxial evenly distributed column-column impacts during collapse.

If anyone wants to try and prove there is something fishy with WTC1 and WTC2, they are going to have to show that NIST's theory regarding collapse initiation is incorrect. I am a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice where I have encouraged people to look at initiation because I think the other collapse issues have been convincingly resolved. However, initiation is where NIST has focused most of their energy and I think it is very unlikely that someone can convincingly refute this work.

 

[Newtons Bit]

To simplify the whole matter. The columns were heavier lower down and lighter higher up. We know some dimensions of the exterior columns given by NIST and we know the total weight from the original steel orders. A linear approximation is reasonable except near the top of the building. The difference between 12 transitions and the linear approximation is not very significant considering that the exterior columns had a load capacity that was 5 times the actual load.

Of course the calculation could be refined, but I believe the assumptions are close enough to permit reasonable analyses of overload, momentum transfer, conservation of energy and fall-time analyses of the type that others such as Ross, Greening, Kuttler, and Bazant have been working on. I have looked pretty carefully at all these analyses and they all have simplifying assumptions. Ross and Kuttler have egregious errors and the Bazant "simple analysis" has egregious omissions. Nonetheless, I have redone the calculations myself and when the correct mass values and steel dimensions are used, they don't change the results all that much. When the simplifying assumptions are refined and omissions added the result indicates collapse continuation even when retaining the most optimistic assumption of coaxial evenly distributed column-column impacts during collapse.

If anyone wants to try and prove there is something fishy with WTC1 and WTC2, they are going to have to show that NIST's theory regarding collapse initiation is incorrect. I am a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice where I have encouraged people to look at initiation because I think the other collapse issues have been convincingly resolved. However, initiation is where NIST has focused most of their energy and I think it is very unlikely that someone can convincingly refute this work.

And now the truthers don't believe you. I find this somewhat ironic

 

[Newtons Bit]

You were complaining about my use of "EXPERT" and "LAYMAN" so I showed you where NIST claimed to be experts.

Now you want to switch subjects.

No. Let's have a review.

Why weren't the EXPERTS talking about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building within SIX WEEKS on 9/11?

Possible answers:
1) They were bought off!
2) They were intimidated!
3) They were demanding answers but were censored!
4) They didn't need to know exact quantities to know it would collapse.

Now then, which of these seems more likely? There are thousands of licensed engineers and several times more unlicensed who work in the architectural engineering field. Knowing that, could the big bad NWO buy/intimidate/censor them all off or is it more likely that every one of us engineers are not shocked that the towers collapsed after suffering such massive damage and huge fires?

I expect experts who claim to know what they are talking about to explain things in a comprehensible manner. I am not going to spend time worrying about why they don't I am just not going to BELIEVE the crap and just focus on the problem myself. Especially if it is just about a grade school physics problem.

Did you watch the video or not?

I suppose it would be too easy for LAYMEN to understand a table with tons of steel and tons of concrete for each level.

psik

Now then. Exactly where was the subject changed? Oh, that's right. Right here. I wanted to know why you thought the experts weren't asking about the tonnage of steel and concrete (by the way, there's alot more mass in the building than just steel and concrete). Then after me asking why the change from experts asking about the tonnages to laymen understanding tables, you reply with a quote about how NIST considers themselves an expert.

Do you get the pattern of non-sequiter here? So again, wtf are you talking about? Care to answer the original question? Here it is again:

There are thousands of licensed engineers and several times more unlicensed who work in the architectural engineering field. Knowing that, could the big bad NWO buy/intimidate/censor them all off or is it more likely that every one of us engineers are not shocked that the towers collapsed after suffering such massive damage and huge fires?/

I'd also like to know why you think the experts talking about tonnages six weeks after 9/11 is even relevant.

Oh wow, another genius that needs to convince himself that other people are stupid.

I don't need to say anything to put you down. The fact that you believe the 9/11 woo is demeaning enough to your own character. I have caught you in an incredibly stupid and ignorant statement, which you fail to even acknowledge. You could however man up and admit that this stuff is kinda complicated and the average layman isn't going to understand an in-depth analysis because most laymen don't even know that the different grades of structural steel all weigh the same much less all the incredibly complicated mathematical facets of engineering.

So where is NISTs raw data for the temperatures of these HUGE FIRES? As in "paint deformation" and "microscopic steel analysis". Shouldn't we know the quantity of steel in these HUGE FIRES to figure out if the steel can get hot enough to weaken in order for the collapse to begin?

psik

As I recall, there were only 4 pieces of steel positively identified from collapse initiation zone. However there are other ways to show that the fires were hot and huge.

From: http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin28

Do multiple floors completly engulfed in flames count as "huge fires" in your world? They do in mine. But I've gone a step farther in this post as well. I've actually crunched the numbers and determined exactly what the fires did that caused the collapse.

The walls being pulled in didn't happen because the steel lost strength in the fire, but rather that it lost stiffness and second-order compression lead to failure.

Now then, this is the failure initiation laid out on a plate. Can you understand it, or do you need more "laymen's terms"?

 

[TjW]

And now the truthers don't believe you. I find this somewhat ironic

But not at all unexpected.

 

[psikeyhackr]

To simplify the whole matter. The columns were heavier lower down and lighter higher up. We know some dimensions of the exterior columns given by NIST and we know the total weight from the original steel orders. A linear approximation is reasonable except near the top of the building. The difference between 12 transitions and the linear approximation is not very significant considering that the exterior columns had a load capacity that was 5 times the actual load.

Do they ever say how many of each of the 12 types of wall panels were manufactured?

psik

 

[GregoryUrich]

Do they ever say how many of each of the 12 types of wall panels were manufactured?

psik

Not that I am aware of. I have read through most of the NIST documentation a number of times and with a focus on design and construction, so I don't think they do. Do you think it would make a significant difference?

 

[GregoryUrich]

And now the truthers don't believe you. I find this somewhat ironic

I don't expect anyone to believe me but I do expect people to read the article and think about it a bit before they accept or reject it.

 

[DC]

Newtons Bit, you was not supriced when the tower came down?