Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[psikeyhackr]

I suppose you think those details are complete. The column would be useless if they were.

You are of course free to suppose whatever you like but I was only commenting on a thicker, heavier column section being on top of a lighter column section. Considering that the Empire State Building was completed in 1931 I presume the issue of how to splice columns was solved long ago. It is just so interesting that we can't get information about the distribution of steel and concrete in a different skyscraper 38 years after the moon landing.

I wonder who would have thought that in 1931.

psik

 

[DGM]

You are of course free to suppose whatever you like but I was only commenting on a thicker, heavier column section being on top of a lighter column section. Considering that the Empire State Building was completed in 1931 I presume the issue of how to splice columns was solved long ago. It is just so interesting that we can't get information about the distribution of steel and concrete in a different skyscraper 38 years after the moon landing.

I wonder who would have thought that in 1931.

psik

I'm not supposing anything I know how to read. Stop pretending that this information is somehow being hidden. If you think your concerns make a difference show us your calculations or stop pretending you can . It's time for you to [rule 10] or get off the pot.

ETA you still have no clue what that chart means.

 

[A W Smith]

But you don't get more structure without more mass. They weren't just throwing steel in there arbitrarily. So if you know how much more steel is on the 50th floor than on the 90th floor then you have an idea how much STRONGER it had to be. Greening admits that it takes the energy, E1, to bend the steel on a level. He does not explain how he can assume the same amount of energy will collapse any and every level of the the building. How much weight of steel did the 10th floor have to support compared to the 90th? Wouldn't it take more energy to destroy?

People try to convince us that physics suddenly becomes magic because it goes from static to dynamic. But that E1 has to come from the kinetic of the top falling so every level should make it slow down. So if it takes more energy per level coming down the building.....

Oh, but Greening says it's the same. But how is that possible?

Damn we don't have a table telling us the quantity of steel on each level so we can get an idea of how strong each level was.

psik

the floors at level fifty were no stronger than the floors at level 90th. Only the columns were stronger to carry the weight of above floors. The floor space was designed to carry a 100 PSF office load. Can you show us the weight or cross sectional difference per LF a truss on these two different floors? Will you or will you not address the OP in this thread and quit the derailing?

I've been gone most of the last week and a half. Dropped in briefly to pen another bit for Gregory Urich, but that was it.

It appears that nearly nothing has happened with the Truth Movement. Likewise, what ongoing contentious discussions remain are of very low quality.

I'd like to try a return to constructive dialogue, and hopefully, bring this to a closure that is satisfying to all. In that spirit, I hereby place myself at your disposal. This thread is a living experiment. Here's how it works:

In this thread, I invite anyone -- but principally the Truth Movement -- to post their crucial questions. By that I mean your questions that, if they were to be answered, would convince you that there is no compelling reason to believe in any conspiracy surrounding September 11th.

If you post those questions, I will do my level best to answer them. I also freely admit that I am neither all-knowing nor infallible. It's quite possible that you will ask something I cannot answer. If so, I will be forthright about this. If I can answer but have doubts, I will give you those as well. Full disclosure.

This is meant to be a learning exercise for all of us. It will probably take some effort on your part to organize your thoughts carefully. You should present your questions in detail, with background, and your own analysis where possible. You should also think about what kind of answers you anticipate, and what those would mean.

I am completely clearing my Ignore list, and I pledge to keep this thread abuse-free to the best of my ability. For purposes of this thread, any past you may have with me or other posters here is forgotten.

This is open to non-Truth Movement folks as well, but I anticipate the Truth Movement must have more to question, thus I am specifically inviting them.

So... any takers? Let's hear what's on your mind.

 

[boloboffin]

But you don't get more structure without more mass. They weren't just throwing steel in there arbitrarily.

It was almost exactly the same structure all the way up for the Twin Towers. The mass got lighter by substituting thinner plates of steel in the beams, and even going to I-beams instead of the big thick beams that Gage and others like to parade around on their PowerPoints.

There was no more or no less structure for the vast majority of the floors. There was just more or less mass. Same Maze, Smaller Rodents.

So if you know how much more steel is on the 50th floor than on the 90th floor then you have an idea how much STRONGER it had to be.

The lower the structural elements, the bigger they are.

The lower the structure, the more distance gravity had to accelerate the mass falling onto it.

Plot out the increase in load against the increase in steel weight. I will bet you a cookie that the increase in load line goes up a lot quicker than the other one.

Greening admits that it takes the energy, E1, to bend the steel on a level. He does not explain how he can assume the same amount of energy will collapse any and every level of the the building. How much weight of steel did the 10th floor have to support compared to the 90th? Wouldn't it take more energy to destroy?

Yes, a funnel cake being destroyed by a sledgehammer would require more energy from the sledgehammer than a lemon meringue pie. Both are going to go squish.

This is what "order of magnitude" means.

People try to convince us that physics suddenly becomes magic because it goes from static to dynamic.

NO. Physics remains the same stubborn thing it always is.

Take a brick and rest it on your head. No problem, right? Take a brick and drop it onto your head from a distance of a foot. Problems, right?

This is not magic. This is reality.

But that E1 has to come from the kinetic of the top falling so every level should make it slow down. So if it takes more energy per level coming down the building.....

And every bug hitting your windshield slows down your car.

The Sun actually does revolve around the Earth, btw. The Earth affects the Sun's path through space in exactly the same way that the Sun affects the Earth's path through space. It's MAGIC.

Oh, but Greening says it's the same. But how is that possible?

Let's face it. If you didn't get it in the paper...

Damn we don't have a table telling us the quantity of steel on each level so we can get an idea of how strong each level was.

psik

I think destroying all record of that table was on Cheney's "to do" list. He's super effective.

 

[psikeyhackr]

the floors at level fifty were no stronger than the floors at level 90th.

Sorry, I sometimes forget to say LEVEL and say floor instead. I don't give a damn about the strength of those square donut floor slabs. By level I mean all of the material in a 12 foot height. The slabs, the beams in the core, the columns in the core and the perimeter columns. I know most of the floor slabs are the same there is no point in talking about them. Did you score your quota of debating points for the day?

psik

 

[R.Mackey]

It was almost exactly the same structure all the way up for the Twin Towers. The mass got lighter by substituting thinner plates of steel in the beams, and even going to I-beams instead of the big thick beams that Gage and others like to parade around on their PowerPoints.

There was no more or no less structure for the vast majority of the floors. There was just more or less mass. Same Maze, Smaller Rodents.

Let me clarify slightly. The design of the structure was more or less constant with height. There are, of course, a few major exceptions:

• Basement structures were of different design
• Below Floor 7, the core had resistance to side-loads, making up for the fewer perimeter columns below the "column trees"
• Mechanical and skylobby floors contained cross-bracing and beam-framing not found elsewhere
• The "hat truss" on the top floors, originally intended to support massive antennas, but also providing a useful path for load redistribution

That last exception actually makes the very highest floors heavier than the ones slightly below, and considerably stiffer. This is one of many reasons why the "crush down" model originally proposed by Drs. Bazant and Zhou isn't all that bad, at least early in the collapses.

While the design is mostly constant, the mass as a function of height varies substantially. Gregory Urich and others have already commented on this in detail. Once again, all one has to do to investigate further is acquire the SAP2000 model of the Towers, available publicly, and go into it with whatever question one likes.

This information has been answered numerous times. Re-asking the question of "where's the information on mass per floor" in feigned ignorance of these answers constitutes a significant derail, and if it persists, I will be forced to solicit assistance from the Moderators. Please let's all return to topic.

 

[boloboffin]

Let me clarify slightly. The design of the structure was more or less constant with height. There are, of course, a few major exceptions:

• Basement structures were of different design
• Below Floor 7, the core had resistance to side-loads, making up for the fewer perimeter columns below the "column trees"
• Mechanical and skylobby floors contained cross-bracing and beam-framing not found elsewhere
• The "hat truss" on the top floors, originally intended to support massive antennas, but also providing a useful path for load redistribution

That last exception actually makes the very highest floors heavier than the ones slightly below, and considerably stiffer. This is one of many reasons why the "crush down" model originally proposed by Drs. Bazant and Zhou isn't all that bad, at least early in the collapses.

While the design is mostly constant, the mass as a function of height varies substantially. Gregory Urich and others have already commented on this in detail. Once again, all one has to do to investigate further is acquire the SAP2000 model of the Towers, available publicly, and go into it with whatever question one likes.

This information has been answered numerous times. Re-asking the question of "where's the information on mass per floor" in feigned ignorance of these answers constitutes a significant derail, and if it persists, I will be forced to solicit assistance from the Moderators. Please let's all return to topic.

Thanks for clearing up my lay explanation, R.Mackey.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Once again, all one has to do to investigate further is acquire the SAP2000 model of the Towers, available publicly, and go into it with whatever question one likes.

Oh, that's all.

They are binary files that require the SAP2000 program.

Guess what? The program costs $2000.

I'll just rush right out and buy it. NOT! So the NIST takes 3 years and $20,000,000 to produce a 10,000 page report that anyone can download and read but the real data requires a $2000 program. The report you can read doesn't even specify the quantity of concrete in the towers. But Urich says his spreadsheet came from SAP2000 and I already showed that the core column weights from the basements in that spread sheet make no sense. Do you guys work at being this obtuse or is it a gift?

In other words everybody is supposed to believe what they are told by the experts hiding the information and if they don't do that then they are stupid.

ROFLMAO

psik

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh, that's all.

They are binary files that require the SAP2000 program.

Guess what? The program costs $2000. [...] In other words everybody is supposed to believe what they are told by the experts hiding the information and if they don't do that then they are stupid.

In that case, the "Experts" that you are accusing of malfeasance include every civil engineering department in the world, a large fraction of structural engineering and architectural firms in the world, and every individual with $2000 of disposable assets.

ETA: I'm also reasonably certain that you can download an evaluation version of SAP2000 for free. I haven't tried it myself; this is not software that I use professionally.

I trust you can tell the difference between this form of "hiding" and actually attempting to restrict the data.

Do you guys work at being this obtuse or is it a gift?

ROFLMAO

Your conduct is unbecoming. If you want me to respond further, I require that you (a) ask a new question, and (b) show proper decorum and respect. This is my final request to you.

 

[X]

Have you considered asking the mods to put this thread on moderated status, R. Mackey?

It would cut down on the noise.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

ETA: I'm also reasonably certain that you can download an evaluation version of SAP2000 for free. I haven't tried it myself; this is not software that I use professionally.

From CSIBerkeley's site:

This page lists the latest available versions of CSI software...

To request a demo version of a CSI product, please complete the request form. You will be sent downloading instructions within two business days. Please note that demo versions contain all features and capabilities of the products but may be limited in node capacities.

http://www.csiberkeley.com/support_downloads.html

 

[R.Mackey]

Have you considered asking the mods to put this thread on moderated status, R. Mackey?

We're still doing reasonably well. I don't want to overwork the moderators. There's just the occasional poster who doesn't quite understand what I'm trying to do here -- among them, hold a decent conversation...

From CSIBerkeley's site:

Yep, as I thought. Although the node limitation may be significant here, since the NIST WTC model is rather large.

Nonetheless, the data isn't "hidden." If you have the training and credentials to ask the question intelligently, you should have no trouble getting access to the tools required.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Oh, that's all.

They are binary files that require the SAP2000 program.

Guess what? The program costs $2000.

I'll just rush right out and buy it. NOT!

[snip]

In other words everybody is supposed to believe what they are told by the experts hiding the information and if they don't do that then they are stupid.

You have got to be kidding... Are you honestly suggesting that US$2,000 is some insurmountable obstacle? Are you also honestly suggesting that, just because you don't have US$2,000 to drop on this program, that no individual or independent organization does?

OK, seriously... just... get over yourself. Wow.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You have got to be kidding... Are you honestly suggesting that US$2,000 is some insurmountable obstacle? Are you also honestly suggesting that, just because you don't have US$2,000 to drop on this program, that no individual or independent organization does?

OK, seriously... just... get over yourself. Wow.

It makes more sense to point out to people how idiotic the NIST is for not providing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level in a comprehensible form after they took 3 years and $20,000,000. You want to twist this around from the lying incompetence of the NIST to an ego attack on me. ROFL Sorry, this is about solving a grammar school physics problem that should have been finished by 2003.

But the NIST can tell us the buildings were 70% air.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

I computed that to be 15 tons of air per level. The steel "averaged" 862 tons per level but the dummies at NIST can't tell us the distribution. And can't tell us the total concrete at all. Of course they can also tell us that one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Those guys are really good at figuring out what the important information is. NOT! Of course anyone that takes them seriously can't be too swift.

psik

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh, that's all.

They are binary files that require the SAP2000 program.

Guess what? The program costs $2000.

I'll just rush right out and buy it. NOT! So the NIST takes 3 years and $20,000,000 to produce a 10,000 page report that anyone can download and read but the real data requires a $2000 program. The report you can read doesn't even specify the quantity of concrete in the towers. But Urich says his spreadsheet came from SAP2000 and I already showed that the core column weights from the basements in that spread sheet make no sense. Do you guys work at being this obtuse or is it a gift?

In other words everybody is supposed to believe what they are told by the experts hiding the information and if they don't do that then they are stupid.

ROFLMAO

psik

Believe me...you would not be able to make sense of the raw data without that $2000 program.

 

[Myriad]

Psikeyhacker, what neither NIST nor anyone else can tell you is the exact distribution of total mass including building contents per floor.

How many file cabinets and where they were located are the tenants' private business, and as far as I know was never extensively investigated. NIST used estimates. Consider, for example, the sleuthing that Enrico Manieri did to find the evidence proving that there was an uninterruptible power supply (UPS), a large and very heavy array of batteries, on the 81st floor of the South Tower.[/ups]

So, if you want to calculate (for instance) exactly where the center of mass of the upper blocks would be had the towers been untenanted, go ahead and use the exact data from the NIST SAP model. Or, you can use (or generate your own) reasonable estimate that includes the building contents like Gregory Urich did, which should be good enough for any reasonable analysis. But if for some reason you need to know the precise center of mass that actually existed, you're out of luck whether you have $2000 to spend on a license for SAP or not. NIST had no need for mass distribution data that precise, and therefore made no attempt to grill the surviving employees of the tenants (who were among the victims of the crime, remember) on how the filing cabinets and server racks were arranged on every floor.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[slyjoe]

It makes more sense to point out to people how idiotic the NIST is for not providing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level in a comprehensible form after they took 3 years and $20,000,000. You want to twist this around from the lying incompetence of the NIST to an ego attack on me. ROFL Sorry, this is about solving a grammar school physics problem that should have been finished by 2003.

But the NIST can tell us the buildings were 70% air.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

I computed that to be 15 tons of air per level. The steel "averaged" 862 tons per level but the dummies at NIST can't tell us the distribution. And can't tell us the total concrete at all. Of course they can also tell us that one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. Those guys are really good at figuring out what the important information is. NOT! Of course anyone that takes them seriously can't be too swift.

psik

The irony meter just exploded. You guys got an extra one?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Psikeyhacker, what neither NIST nor anyone else can tell you is the exact distribution of total mass including building contents per floor.

The building contents are not what held up the the building.

Do you notice I am not asking about the glass? They should be able to tell us that.

Do you notice I am not asking about the plumbing? They should be able to tell us that.

But I showed that they had an entire report about suspended ceilings and that is the only place they use the term "center of mass". ROFL

Since the building was held up by steel and concrete that is what had to fail or be destroyed. That is why I focus on it. I see no point in concentrating on the relatively unimportant details when I don't have reliable information about the important stuff. I don't know what you mean by exact but I think the error should be less than 5%.

If Greening had just assumed the mass of level 1 was twice the mass of level 110 and done a linear interpolation that would have been more reasonable than averaging. There is no way a skyscraper could have a constant distribution of mass.

That is what was done with the steel distribution here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

I don't understand why the distribution of steel and concrete weren't top priorities after the shock of 9/11 wore off. But no, it isn't really publicly available after SIX YEARS.

psik

 

[boloboffin]

If Greening had just assumed the mass of level 1 was twice the mass of level 110 and done a linear interpolation that would have been more reasonable than averaging. There is no way a skyscraper could have a constant distribution of mass.

There are his formulas, and there are your assumptions. Work the math and let us know how it comes out.

 

[Myriad]

The building contents are not what held up the the building.

Neither was the concrete on the floors.

Since you asked about the the concrete anyway, and since you earlier mentioned that you wanted the figures in order to determine the the center of mass of the the upper blocks, I thought you might want to include all the mass.

But that's only if you want your findings to mean anything. (Only some of the mass helps hold the building up, but all of it helps the building fall down.) Forgive me if I was unjustified in assuming that.

Respectfully,
Myriad