Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[twinstead]

The Twin Towers were not damaged evenly. In fact, one tower was damaged toward one of its corners. Its collapse did not reflect this lack of uniformity however.

This is what I don't understand. The collapses happened EXACTLY as they should have given the construction of the towers and the method of failure. To even this non-engineer it has been explained to me to my satisfaction over and over again, by people who actually know what they are talking about, both on and off this forum.

Nobody who matters has a problem with the collapses. What am I supposed to do when some random dude on an internet forum expresses incredulity?

Oh, yea. That's right. Ignore him.

 

[NoahFence]

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

I'm sure someone's already pointed this out, but the trade towers were 90% (or more) AIR.

 

[excaza]

Just when I thought truther "physics" couldn't get any worse...

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I'm sure someone's already pointed this out, but the trade towers were 90% (or more) AIR.

An excellent point to remember!

 

[NoahFence]

WOW!

Where'd you get THAT photo!?! Cool. And it illustrates the point amazingly.

 

[excaza]

I can't believe you got a photo showing the installation of the explosives!

 

[sylvan8798]

That one and some other cool ones can be found on this lovely forum where they prove that the towers were actually hollow:

http://letsrollforums.com/hollow-towers-photo-video-t23095.html

 

[DeathDart]

I'm sure someone's already pointed this out, but the trade towers were 90% (or more) AIR.

Point conceded.

 

[Oystein]

I'm sure someone's already pointed this out, but the trade towers were 90% (or more) AIR.

Elsewhere I have computed that the average density of the towers (total mass devided by total volume) was in the vicinity of 1/6 g/cm³.

The average density of the building materials can be estimated when we know that steel has a density of about 7.8 g/cm³ and most of the lightweight concrete of about 1.75-2 g/cm³. Aluminium is 2.7 g/cm³. I am assuming that drywall has about the same density as the concrete. So let's say that the density of all materials except steel is on average 2 g/cm³.
Let us further assume steel accounts for half the mass of the building, and all other materials for the other half.
Then the average density of all materials involved is about 3.2 g/cm³, or about 19 times the density of the buildings with air.

This means that 1 - 1/19 = 95% (rounded) were air.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Take say, 300 blocks

Put 1 on top the other.

Instead, mark off an area in your living room. Say your tiles are 18 in by 18 in.
Find a configuration of four tiles to mark off a 2 tile by 2 tile grid.
Arrange a row of blocks along the perimeter of your grid

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Once you've completed the first row of blocks, you should have a 2 tile by 2 tile (3'-0" by 3'-0") arrangement of blocks that is one row high. Stack a 2nd row on top of the first, and so on and so on.

If you have enough blocks try to build to a height of approximately 8 feet high. Add bracing as needed.

Take a large glass of sand.

No sand required. Since we're already using an out of place model we need to work within the bounds of the design.

Pour sand over blocks.

Since we aren't using sand simply observe what happens to the assembly when you initiate a chain reaction collapse.

Penetrate your block assembly around 2/3 up

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Now tell us, what did you learn from the following:

Treating the model as assembly
scaled up

Blocks are wooden solids.

and in your next experiment you will try something a little closer to what buildings actually are.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Let's take two other vehicles: two trains. If two locomotive cars hit each other head on does one plow all the way through the other one?

 

[jaydeehess]

Gravity, of course. Mostly, it would be pulling the debris downward in a straight line. But, because the lower floors were not getting out of the way at the same speed , the debris would pile up a bit, then start to move laterally. The perimeter columns, deprived of their lateral supports, would offer less resistance than the undamaged floors below, and would yield suddenly, allowing gravity to pull loose bebris off over the side of the pile, like the sand piling up on top of a solid block of wood.


Again, this would require a horizontal force.



Again, compparing the debris to sand poured onto a wooden block, if there is any object resting against the block so that the top of it rises above the edge of the block, less sand will be able to fall off that edge and will, instead, tend to run off the other edges.

Yeah I saw what he was getting at later in my post. i had other thoughts on this , see below..

In the towers, the columns that failed at a lower level would allow more of the pile of debris to slide off in that direction, so that the surplus which was acting against the least damaged face, but not able to move downward against the resistance of the lower floors, would tend to slump into the more damaged areas.

Thought #1
There is a self adjusting mechanism at play as well. Yes, the still intact perimeter column retards material from flowing out that way and thus more would move towards the missing side. However the cone is also now no longer centered on the structure BECUASE the intact wall is allowing more pile up to that side, thus more mass on that side and WHEN (not a matter of IF) the floor on that side does fail there is more mass to fall upon that side of the next floor down thus more dynamic force thus a quicker failure.

Thought #2
The debris is far from a sand or gravel mix. It contains columns and beams that would span through several floors distance in the moving debris. I believe that this would disrupt the laminar flow of debris to the sides(which is taking place more on the top of the 'cone' than in the center of the 'cone' or at impact zone.

The core is a bit of a sticky wicket here. It did moderate the flow of loose debris so that it did not all move toward the more advanced front.

Yes, and it is quite obvious that the core collapse lagged the perimeter and that the floor failures most likely lead the perimeter failure.

I can see how collapse would have arrested in a more conventionally-designed building.

Yes, even if one only takes into account the role of the interior columns and the debris 'cone'. This 'cone is going to be disrupted by each column between center and perimeter whereas in the towers all columns were in the center.

However I believe that the major role of the long span floors here was that in a more conventional post and beam structure the floors will fail between columns, thus only a small portion of the floor can fail at one time whereas in the long span design huge areas can and will fail at once. In a conventional building then less debris will be acting on the perimeter at any one instant and cause less chance of perimeter failure especialy over the large portions of the perimeter that a long span failure would allow.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wow! thank you for that. I missed that episode.

I especially like how there is no discernable slowing of the steel plate as it hits the car.
Either the car was simply offering such a small amount of 'resistance' that it is undiscernable
OR
There was no rocket sled and this was all a CG effect designed to bolster the OCT of 9/11/01.

 

[tempesta29]

This is what I don't understand. The collapses happened EXACTLY as they should have given the construction of the towers and the method of failure. To even this non-engineer it has been explained to me to my satisfaction over and over again, by people who actually know what they are talking about, both on and off this forum.

Nobody who matters has a problem with the collapses. What am I supposed to do when some random dude on an internet forum expresses incredulity?

Oh, yea. That's right. Ignore him.

Then why didn't you ignore me?

One of the towers was hit in a corner of its structure. That's where the failure would have occurred, and that's where the upper structure would have leaned and fallen--NOT straight down through the path of most resistance.

Of course you're satisfied with the official story. It means you don't have to face a harsh reality.

 

[tempesta29]

Both the train and the car analogies are of limited validity, as neither experiences an accelerating force at the rate of 9.8m/s/s straight down.

The train example is particularly inapt as the cars of a train have very much different proportions relative to one another than the floors of a tall building.

The train analogy is less valid than than that of the car because trains have different proportions to each other? And what, cars on the street don't??

None of this nonsense even matters because the upper sections didn't decelerate when they passed through the crash zones, though they should have. Official story dupes like to pretend that there was so much immense damage as to cause total failure of these amazing structures, yet also not so much damage as to create a discrepancy in acceleration as the upper section smashed into undamaged areas of the lower section. Bollocks.

 

[NoahFence]

Then why didn't you ignore me?

One of the towers was hit in a corner of its structure. That's where the failure would have occurred, and that's where the upper structure would have leaned and fallen--NOT straight down through the path of most resistance.

Of course you're satisfied with the official story. It means you don't have to face a harsh reality.

Was the one with the corner damage this one?

Wow. That's curious. It's tilting.

Hmm... interesting.

 

[twinstead]

The train analogy is less valid than than that of the car because trains have different proportions to each other? And what, cars on the street don't??

None of this nonsense even matters because the upper sections didn't decelerate when they passed through the crash zones, though they should have. Official story dupes like to pretend that there was so much immense damage as to cause total failure of these amazing structures, yet also not so much damage as to create a discrepancy in acceleration as the upper section smashed into undamaged areas of the lower section. Bollocks.

By "official story dupes" you of course mean the entirety of the world's engineering and scientific community, right? It's amazing that so many people were fooled, but tempesta29 is able to unplug from the matrix, isn't it?

 

[funk de fino]

Then why didn't you ignore me?

One of the towers was hit in a corner of its structure. That's where the failure would have occurred, and that's where the upper structure would have leaned and fallen--NOT straight down through the path of most resistance.

Of course you're satisfied with the official story. It means you don't have to face a harsh reality.

Post 8776. Epic fail.

Quit while you're behind.

 

[DGM]

None of this nonsense even matters because the upper sections didn't decelerate when they passed through the crash zones, though they should have..

So, are you now claiming the towers fell at free-fall?

 

[Oystein]

The train analogy is less valid than than that of the car because trains have different proportions to each other? And what, cars on the street don't??

None of this nonsense even matters because the upper sections didn't decelerate when they passed through the crash zones, though they should have. ... Bollocks.

What's bollocks is your assertion that the upper section "should have" decelerated. As it was FALLING, it experiences a constant acceleration straight down of g (-9.8 ms^-2). However, observed acceleration was only 2/3 of that, which means that there WAS a resisting force pointing up, that added a deceleration of about 3.3 ms^-2. And guess what: That computes to the expected average acceleration one would expect from the average strength of buckling columns, as they meet dynamic impact of mass m.
It also computes nicely when you consider available energy from gravity versus needed energy to deform structure for total destruction. The math has been done and published in real science magazines and shown to match observations.

You are thus demonstrably WRONG.