911 WTC collapse (only!)

[Thanz]

Do you have any calculations that may suggest why the top of the building would fall aside?

Jenga. It never falls through the other blocks - always to the side. Explain that, smarty pants.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The top of the building fell through the entire building, rather than falling aside. It would be interesting to test the mechanisms of these two theories with a model of adequate size, e.g. 10% of the original. Otherwise I guess that I will never firmly believe how it works, until I see how it works.

Right, time for a tutorial on scaling. Let's make a 10% sized model of WTC2. It will have columns 10% of the stiffness (scales as area divided by length), but wind forces will be only 1% of the real ones because wind resistance scales with area. The weight will be only 0.1% of the real one (scales with volume). The fracture energy per floor will be 1% of the real one (scales with column area), but the gravitational potential energy (scales as volume multiplied by height) will be 0.01% of the real one. So energetically a 10% scale model will have a ratio of potential energy to fracture energy - the ratio that determines whether or not it will collapse - 100 times less than the real building. So it won't collapse. Now if we weaken the columns by a factor of 100, it will collapse - but this test is discredited by the truth movement, because we have "tweaked the model to ensure collapse".

Summary: Scale models behave nothing like the real thing. If you won't believe it till you see a scale model collapse, then you won't believe it. Even though it's true.

Dave

 

[Thanz]

Right, time for a tutorial on scaling. Let's make a 10% sized model of WTC2. It will have columns 10% of the stiffness (scales as area divided by length), but wind forces will be only 1% of the real ones because wind resistance scales with area. The weight will be only 0.1% of the real one (scales with volume). The fracture energy per floor will be 1% of the real one (scales with column area), but the gravitational potential energy (scales as volume multiplied by height) will be 0.01% of the real one. So energetically a 10% scale model will have a ratio of potential energy to fracture energy - the ratio that determines whether or not it will collapse - 100 times less than the real building. So it won't collapse. Now if we weaken the columns by a factor of 100, it will collapse - but this test is discredited by the truth movement, because we have "tweaked the model to ensure collapse".

Summary: Scale models behave nothing like the real thing. If you won't believe it till you see a scale model collapse, then you won't believe it. Even though it's true.

Not only that, but unless my math skillz are completely crap, a 10% model of WTC2 would be 11 stories and 136 feet tall, with 380,000 square feet of office space. That is quite the undertaking to just blow it up and see which way it falls.

 

[CurtC]

Not only that, but unless my math skillz are completely crap, a 10% model of WTC2 would be 11 stories and 136 feet tall, with 380,000 square feet of office space.

Very short office space.

Maybe before condemning it for destruction, they could offer it to midgets (or dwarves or whatever the PC term is) to give them a place to stay at no charge. Then at least it would have a time of utility. They could call them "Stay Free Mini Pads."

 

[maccy]

Also, on the modelling issue:

Imagine a fluke shot in snooker or pool - something like a ball hitting the jaws of one pocket, rolling along the cushion and landing in another pocket.

You still have the table, the player that took the shot, the cue they used and all the balls. If the event was recorded on video (and let's say it was) you have a visual reference with which you can replace all the balls to the point where they were before the shot played. This has to be a perfect model, surely? Also the physics is comparatively simple - cue strikes cue ball, cue ball strikes object ball, object ball strikes jaw of pocket and is deflected into another pocket. So you get your player to do it again. If they don't manage to replicate the shot, do you say it never happened?

 

[Loss Leader]

Summary: Scale models behave nothing like the real thing. If you won't believe it till you see a scale model collapse, then you won't believe it. Even though it's true.

You know what we need - an exact replica of WTC1 exactly the same height and age and built with exactly the same materials struck by exactly the same type of plane under exactly the same weather conditions on exactly the same day. Now, if that mythical "second tower" were to also collapse, we might really be able to draw some conclusions. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever be able to really create this "tower two" so we should all just stop thinking about it.

 

[Gravy]

They could call them "Stay Free Mini Pads."

Everyone with rotten fruit to spare, please throw it at CurtC's post.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Everyone with rotten fruit to spare, please throw it at CurtC's post.

You're just upset you didn't think of it first

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I would be keen to learn what kind of deception I have been involved in. [...]

I am interested in the technical details of the collapse of the WTC twin towers. [...]

This is an excellent example of what I was looking for by starting this thread: "they" say that a domino collapse would have taken considerably more time than what happened, "you" say that the timing was perfectly natural for a gravity collapse. [...]

You misrepresented your reason for creating this thread. You said you wanted facts, but then you admit that you were actually just fishing for contradictions.

 

[JJM 777]

you were originally registered as JohnJoeMittler. Is there a reason why you registered again

When the previous version of JREF forum was taken down (was it three or four years ago?), for some time there was no forum at all. At that time I quit visiting the site. Now that I came back here, I assumed that this is an all new forum, without the old user data or threads.

do you believe the NIST theory on collapse initiation to be valid? yes? No?

My current status in this issue is passive and undecided. I don't think that I have enough information and understanding about the facts to decide my standing, neither am I about to do so very soon. I will dedicate my energy to other issues.

The basic assumption is that anyone can be lying in this world. In fact, the more power a person has, the more probable it is that he is not telling the entire truth or his earnest personal opinion about any topic. The game gets the dirtier the higher you get, it has been so since the birth of civilization.

 

[beachnut]

My current status in this issue is passive and undecided. I don't think that I have enough information and understanding about the facts to decide my standing, neither am I about to do so very soon. I will dedicate my energy to other issues.

The basic assumption is that anyone can be lying in this world. In fact, the more power a person has, the more probable it is that he is not telling the entire truth or his earnest personal opinion about any topic. The game gets the dirtier the higher you get, it has been so since the birth of civilization.

Wow, you have no ideas on the very subject you picked. How pre-school of me to think it was not more.

I thought you might have something to discuss but as expected it was just talk so you could say you have something more important then to find out you may believe lies from the not so great 9/11 truth movement. You have now been lied to by total idiots who can not even research 9/11 without messing up everything.

- The alternative theories claim that:

a) jet gasoline does not burn hot enough to melt steel (is this true or not?)

b) even if the fire were just hot enough to melt steel, the steel pillars would transfer the heat to other parts of the building, and the temperature would remain quite moderate at any location (is this true or not?)

c) the collapse took place faster than would be possible with a domino effect of a floor crushing the floor below and so on (is this true or not?)

d) a controlled demolition of pre-installed explosives could have taken the towers down exactly in the manner witnessed in TV cameras (I expect this claim to be true)

Your jet fuel cannot melt steel is funny, no one who is educated past 3rd grade thinks steel melts in a jet fuel fire. So (a) is stupid. What do you think? (or is this too hard for you since you are too busy with something else, yet you posted this tripe)

B, or b, is your famous heat sink stuff. Check you computer heat sink, not steel. Darn, again, stupid stuff from truth. They have no great power yet tell lies out of their mind lies. I guess they are trying hard to act like the powerful people you know. I have know powerful people, the best ones never lie. Darn, there goes your theory. The best are too busy to lie, you must know a bunch of liars. You should try to call them on it.

C, the collapse, you never did the energy thing. Some have posted links for your review, but you seem too busy to find the truth, so too bad for you. Why did you post this stupid statement, C? Why? Oh, you are too busy.

D, nope, there were no explosives in the building, as you can see and hear if you tried. Explosives have distinctive sounds and visuals. Not anything like the gravity collapse of the WTC. If you watch the videos again you will see. But then, if the truth movement had facts and evidence of explosives we would have a different story.

And how did you find the stuff already posted for you at http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin

What do you think? I know not enough time to devote to research, you just want to post crap and run along, saying you have something to do. Right.

 

[slingblade]

My current status in this issue is passive and undecided. I don't think that I have enough information and understanding about the facts to decide my standing, neither am I about to do so very soon. I will dedicate my energy to other issues.

The basic assumption is that anyone can be lying in this world. In fact, the more power a person has, the more probable it is that he is not telling the entire truth or his earnest personal opinion about any topic. The game gets the dirtier the higher you get, it has been so since the birth of civilization.

 

[maccy]

The basic assumption is that anyone can be lying in this world. In fact, the more power a person has, the more probable it is that he is not telling the entire truth or his earnest personal opinion about any topic. The game gets the dirtier the higher you get, it has been so since the birth of civilization.

Would agree that in order to establish that someone is lying, you need to have evidence for it?

Even if you could prove that more powerful people lie more often (and I don't think you can) you can't expand that argument to say that because someone is powerful they must be lying.

Besides, the various accounts, reports and investigations of 9/11 that make up what conspiracy theorists call the "official story" involved the participation of thousands of people, most of whom are far removed from power. Are all these people lying?

Even if you could demonstrate that something in the official account is wrong (and I haven't seen this done yet) this says nothing for the validity of an alternative hypothesis. To establish that you have to explain how the hypothesis is possible and provide evidence that supports it.

 

[JJM 777]

in order to establish that someone is lying, you need to have evidence for it?

Naturally. But I have not established that someone is lying.

you can't expand that argument to say that because someone is powerful they must be lying.

Not in any particular issue.

But generally, you absolutely cannot be a high-profile politician and answer truthfully all questions presented to you by the media. Politicians only say things that are likely to increase their popularity, and do their best to avoid answering (correctly) any question that might compromise their popularity in the eyes of the voters. These are the rules of the game of voter-hunting.

Therefore, what a politician says is seldom a reliable and accurate source of any information whatsoever.

 

[gumboot]

My current status in this issue is passive and undecided. I don't think that I have enough information and understanding about the facts to decide my standing, neither am I about to do so very soon. I will dedicate my energy to other issues.

In your opening post you stated that you wished to discuss the technical details of the collapse of the WTC. The most extensive and reliable study of this matter is the work done by NIST. You now state that you do not have enough information or understanding regarding NIST to come to a conclusion. This indicates to me that you have not read NIST's work. You also state above that you do not intend to look into NIST's analysis of the WTC collapse any time soon.

If this is true, why did you bother starting this thread? This thread explicitly deals with the very issues you now claim you do not intend to look into. Why did you waste your time and ours?

-Gumboot

 

[Loss Leader]

Politicians only say things that are likely to increase their popularity, and do their best to avoid answering (correctly) any question that might compromise their popularity in the eyes of the voters. These are the rules of the game of voter-hunting.

Or people tend to vote for individuals with whom they agree. Assuming people actually vote for politicians based on how much they like the politician, it seems the system is designed to favor those with popular views. What evidence do you have that politicians answer dishonestly to gain votes rather than that people vote for the ones with whom they agree?

Don't bother answering. You have no such evidence. You just like to say things and then watch all of the people post in response.

 

[firecoins]

Loss Leader

You know various elected leaders will say anything to get elected. Geroge Bush was against nation building in the 2000 election. However, your right. If Bush & the Democratically held Congress have said things to only be popular, they failed to remain on the cutting edge.

 

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader

You know various elected leaders will say anything to get elected.

Possibly. However, this is not what JJM said. His words were:

Politicians only say things that are likely to increase their popularity, and do their best to avoid answering (correctly) any question that might compromise their popularity in the eyes of the voters.

The small four-letter word "only" is the difference between your reasonable (if jaded) statement and JJM's unwarranted assertion.

 

[JJM 777]

why did you bother starting this thread? (...) Why did you waste your time and ours?

I was in the hopes that someone would introduce compact data that firmly settles the case. But the issue appears to be way too wide to be settled without extensive study of lengthy reports full of physical jargon -- whereof I would understand very little, therefore also being unable to assess the validity of the said jargon, wherefore reading the jargon becomes less and less inviting.

What evidence do you have that politicians answer dishonestly to gain votes rather than that people vote for the ones with whom they agree?

The statistical fact that the more detailed an answer the politician gives, the less there would be people who fully agree with what is said. Therefore the tactics in the voter-hunting game is to say as little as possible in most issues -- excluding the key issues which have been chosen as the "agenda" with which the party mainly markets itself to the voters.

Say as little as possible -- as many as possible will at least not disagree with you. Say a lot about an issue -- the more you say, the more there will be people who disagree with you.

 

[Belz...]

The top of the building fell through the entire building, rather than falling aside.

Of course, since the latter is impossible.

It would be interesting to test the mechanisms of these two theories with a model of adequate size, e.g. 10% of the original.

Or a computer model...

Otherwise I guess that I will never firmly believe how it works, until I see how it works.

Incredulity noted.

The basic assumption is that anyone can be lying in this world. In fact, the more power a person has, the more probable it is that he is not telling the entire truth or his earnest personal opinion about any topic. The game gets the dirtier the higher you get, it has been so since the birth of civilization.

Unfortunately for you this is not how we determine the truth. Each claim must be analysed individually in light of the evidence. Although the fact that governments lie makes many of their claims suspicious, you can't use this to decide whether or not they lied about 9/11.