Fyziks 101

[DavidJames]

If you can make him understand how the horizontal forces acted on the columns I really think he'd get it. Oh, and it may help to not use 'lateral', or 'connections', or anything similar. Use 'sideways', and 'bolts', and similar terms.

In additional to echoing what nicepants said, I have to add...

Your kidding right?

You really think he'd get it? You really think he has an open mind and is willing to accept the facts, but he's just confused by the terminology?

 

[uk_dave]

You really think he'd get it? You really think he has an open mind and is willing to accept the facts, but he's just confused by the terminology?

'Truthers' have an arrogant over confidence in their own abilities. They may very well excel in some endeavours (or just think that they do)and this seems to give them the ability to believe that they can excel in all endeavours.

So, someone with absolutely no training or expertise in structural engineering, controlled demolition, air crash investigation, fdr analysis, forensic science etc, can, with the help of the internet, believe themselves suitably well informed sufficient to pontificate on such subjects.

Add to this very poor reading comprehension skills (which probably explains why they believe themselves to be experts on so many diverse subjects - they research but fail to understand) and you have a stereotypical 'truther'.

When they fail, their true colours are exposed as they become petulant and argumentative.

 

[DavidJames]

'Truthers' have an arrogant over confidence in their own abilities. They may very well excel in some endeavours (or just think that they do)and this seems to give them the ability to believe that they can excel in all endeavours.

So, someone with absolutely no training or expertise in structural engineering, controlled demolition, air crash investigation, fdr analysis, forensic science etc, can, with the help of the internet, believe themselves suitably well informed sufficient to pontificate on such subjects.

Add to this very poor reading comprehension skills (which probably explains why they believe themselves to be experts on so many diverse subjects - they research but fail to understand) and you have a stereotypical 'truther'.

When they fail, their true colours are exposed as they become petulant and argumentative.

Well said, I net it out to "ignorance and arrogance".

I often wonder how these people deal with real life. Do they exhibit the same tendencies when the subject is their or their families health? Or legal issues or anything that "normal" people may engage professionals. Do they take this attitude with them on the job. When presenting or discussing important topics or decisions with their managers, do they primarily use arguments from incredulity? Do they source educated and experienced experts or just go by their "gut feelings"?

I'm a professional and work with professionals, it would be a hoot to witness one if these clowns present a technical paper sourced by gut feelings and kook sources. Or present a paper with nothing but questions.

 

[Turbofan]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/see.jpg[/qimg]
This is what you get as the last floor hits at 51 m/s, and over 100 tons of TNT kinetic energy destroy a building (why it looks like 100 1000 pound bombs hit). Gravity, it kills.

What you see is a pile of tower reduced by explosives. You see Beachnut
incorrectly states that floors are dropping and contacting other floors in a
pancake fashion.

What he fails to understand is that the perimeter and core columns are
responsible for maintaining the structure of the tower.

Another myth is that the upper section dropped. This is false, and clearly
shown in the NIST report. NIST outlines the number of columns cut by the
plane. 100% of the interior and exterior columns did not fail. The section
above the impact zone would need to sag/bend/tip gradually in order to
'fall'.

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_no_drop.jpg

If the floors failed, then you would still have the perimeter and core columns
securing the tower, or the core remaining:

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_floor_stack.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_collapse3.jpg

At the base of the collapse, there should have been a large section of
tower remaining to explain the slightest, remote chance of a smaller, less
massive object blowing through 1000 feet of tower at a STEADY RATE.
Beachnut believes the figure reached 10 floors per second at the end
of the 'collapse', however video evidence shows a consistent rate of
descent!

We should have seen several floors at the base to make any of this
controlled demolition seem otherwise

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_collapse2.jpg

Again, this is not possible due to the SOLID connection of steel networked
at the core, and exterior columns. This isn't Jenga Beach nut!


R. Mackey:

Yes, static pressure within the tower is equal to the outside pressure.

Yes, dynamic pressure is added to static pressure to arrive at total pressure.

However, the dynamic pressure you are describing only has to overcome
ambient pressure to escape the building. I'm sure you will agree, there
was no form of significant pressure wave entering the building due to a
wind storm?

Therefore, the falling floor in your example would not be able to build
enough pressure against the window with a large opening at the opposite
side

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/911_pressure.jpg

 

[WildCat]

So much ignorance, so much arrogance...

 

[nicepants]

What you see is a pile of tower reduced by explosives. You see Beachnut
incorrectly states that floors are dropping a...

Are you staying or leaving?

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.

We don't mind if you continue to participate in this thread, however if you plan to do so, please address the posts you "waved off" by stating that you were no longer going to debate in this thread. You can start with post #414.

---Somewhat off-topic---

Are you one of those "chemtrail" cters too, Turbo?

http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem1.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem2.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem4.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem5.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem6.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem7.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/pft_chem8.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/con_trails.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/con_trails2.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/jet_stream1.jpg
http://procision-auto.com/Tino/jet_stream2.jpg

 

[Turbofan]

Fascinating, but that has nothing to do with the WTC, or the question you asked which was:

-about a steel structure, not a "solid vertical object"

-about the structure telescoping, not "burying itself into the ground"

Why should I reply to you? You're just as bad as Wildcat for twisting stuff
aronud, just like in your signature.

Those parts in bold are adjectives/verbs to describe the core section and how it reacted
in the video.

Like I said many times before , you are good at picking at trivial points
and overlooking the more important message.

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.

I hope this response is good enough for you sir...

EDIT: No I'm not a believer of chemtrails. Those photos prefixed with PFT are
taken from discussions between certain members. The last four are photos I took.
Notice they are labelled "contrail", or "jetstream". I'm more annoyed with the
pollution and the fact that our government wants to ban leaded fuels in race
classes, but they continue to use leaded fuels in their private jets, and
exempt the airline industry.

 

[WildCat]

Why should I reply to you? You're just as bas as Wildcat for twisting stuff
aronud, just like in your signature.

Twist what around? You did claim that the core columns "slipped into the bedrock", yes?

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.

It's called "falling", I hope that word isn't too technical for you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What you see is a pile of tower reduced by explosives.

Such blissful ignorance...

What he fails to understand is that the perimeter and core columns are responsible for maintaining the structure of the tower.

He is understanding that concept quite well. You on the other hand are making false assertions of how the structure should behave post-collapse.

100% of the interior and exterior columns did not fail.

This is purely false and misleading. The exterior columns were shown to be buckling well in advance of collapse initiation. To ignore that you must either be flat-out stupid, or intentionally misleading people to believe in your theory. You know nothing about structural design, or concepts, and your attempts to lecture us on the subject have been utterly miserable.

I'll define it for you:

In engineering buckling is a failure mode characterized by the abrupt failure of structural members that are subjected to high compressive stresses, in which the actual compressive stresses at failure exceed the ultimate compressive stresses the material is able to withstand.

The progressive buckling observed prior to the tower's collapse is far from characteristic of your fantasy explosives, those exterior columns are undergoing plastic buckling.

Name for me a single grade of explosives that can cause gradual deformation of the structural members turbo... or are you unable to provide any?

The section above the impact zone would need to sag/bend/tip gradually in order to 'fall'.

Prove this fallacious claim with math if you are confident that this is to be the expected behavior.

The core columns supported roughly 60% of the gravity loads, the perimeter carried the other 40% (approx.). From where would the structure 'sag'? There is structure in only two regions; the exterior perimeter, and the core.

And you still forgot about this?Columns buckling observed prior to collapse

If the floors failed, then you would still have the perimeter and core columns
securing the tower, or the core remaining:

Point 1: Floor failure did NOT INITIATE the collapse sequence. NIST never said it did.

Point 2: You have ZERO concept of structural engineering. Stop pretending that you know. I gave you a sample column design problem to show you the difference between the maximum load capacity of 'braced', and 'unbraced' column lengths. You did not read it, would you rather I haunt you with it repeatedly or that I send you all relevant tables and equations so you can check out the difference yourself through math?

READ

however video evidence shows a consistent rate of descent!

Ge, I didn't know you were such a Houdini that you could determine such detail just by looking up a youtube video . Gravity works with a little physics term called acceleration, so you are saying that there was no acceleration? Constant speed after all requires a net increase in acceleration of ZERO.

We should have seen several floors at the base to make any of this controlled demolition seem otherwise

Really? You expected acre sized 4-inch thick concrete slabs to be neatly piled up with ribbons on top? fyziks is clearly not your strong suit... stop pretending it is...

Again, this is not possible due to the SOLID connection of steel networked
at the core, and exterior columns.

I hope by SOLID you don't mean continuous
The structure (the core and perimeter aike) were composed 3-story sections either welded or bolted together. And most came apart at the connections

An inconvenient fact you like to ignore


Jeez... Turbo... stop with the insanity....

 

[Turbofan]

The exterior columns were shown to be buckling well in advance of collapse initiation. To ignore that you must either be flat-out stupid, or intentionally misleading people to believe in your theory. You know nothing about structural design, or concepts, and your attempts to lecture us on the subject have been utterly miserable.

All the buckling and stuff, but you don't account for the 47 core columns
in your collapse theory. To ignore that you must be stupid, or dreaming.

In engineering buckling is a failure mode characterized by the abrupt failure of structural members that are subjected to high compressive stresses, in which the actual compressive stresses at failure exceed the ultimate compressive stresses the material is able to withstand.

No, no...more like let "Google" define it

Nice search skills you have there
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=buckling+failure+mode&meta=

The progressive buckling observed prior to the tower's collapse is far from characteristic of your fantasy explosives, those exterior columns are undergoing plastic buckling.

And shooting out over 350 feet laterally? Gravity huh?

Name for me a single grade of explosives that can cause gradual deformation of the structural members turbo... or are you unable to provide any?

The same ones that demo a building in 10 seconds, and launch tons of
steel 350+ feet away...also cutting through other buildings (WTC 7 )

Point 1: Floor failure did NOT INITIATE the collapse sequence. NIST never said it did.

NIST never did a post initiation analysis. They know they'd expose the
explosives by attempting an explanation.

Ge, I didn't know you were such a Houdini that you could determine such detail just by looking up a youtube video . Gravity works with a little physics term called acceleration, so you are saying that there was no acceleration? Constant speed after all requires a net increase in acceleration of ZERO.

There was acceleration beyond what should have been decelerated by all
of that WTC steel. Gravity also must work through resistance of
all that WTC steel. You're also forgetting about Conservation of Momentum.

Really? You expected acre sized 4-inch thick concrete slabs to be neatly piled up with ribbons on top? fyziks is clearly not your strong suit... stop pretending it is...

I would expect to see an object with considerable mass reseting at the base
to explain the demolition of the towers in about 10 seconds.

I hope by SOLID you don't mean continuous

I hope by now you would have learned that I don't think the core, or
perimeter columns were continous

They are however considered solid.

 

[funk de fino]

There was acceleration beyond what should have been decelerated by all
of that WTC steel. Gravity also must work through resistance of
all that WTC steel. You're also forgetting about Conservation of Momentum.

You do not understand the Conservation of Momentum do you?

I would expect to see an object with considerable mass reseting at the base to explain the demolition of the towers in about 10 seconds.

The towers did not collapse in about 10 secs. FAIL again

I hope by now you would have learned that I don't think the core, or perimeter columns were continous

They are however considered solid.

Thats go to be a stundie. Something which is not solid is considered solid?

You should run back to the FDR thread, you are making a bigger fool of yourself here than over there (something I thought was not possible BTW)

 

[funk de fino]

NIST never did a post initiation analysis. They know they'd expose the explosives by attempting an explanation.

NIST indeed do explain the total collapse, using calculations. The fact you are ignorant to this is not our fault. Try researching a little better.

PS they did not need to use explosives in their explanation or calculations

 

[Turbofan]

NIST indeed do explain the total collapse, using calculations. The fact you are ignorant to this is not our fault. Try researching a little better.

PS they did not need to use explosives in their explanation or calculations

No, but they stretched their numbers to make a computer simulation
fail LMAO.

NIST Anaylsis

Show me YOUR source for the total collapse time of either tower.

 

[funk de fino]

No, but they stretched their numbers to make a computer simulation
fail LMAO.

NIST Anaylsis

You claimed they did not analyse the collapse progression past initiation. They did, they also gave calculations for it. Do you admit you were incorrect?

Show me YOUR source for the total collapse time of either tower.

There is a video shot by someone near the base of one of the towers that nearly killed them. I cannot link the video cause youtube is blocked here but I am sure you can look for it yourself or someone else can link it. In this video the collapse is nearer 15 secs. The only parts which hit the ground in 10 secs were the free falling parts which had been seperated from the structure.

Where is your source that the collapse of each tower was 10 secs. You made the initial claim.

 

[tsig]

snip

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.

snip.

OK how about "falling"

 

[Turbofan]

You claimed they did not analyse the collapse progression past initiation. They did, they also gave calculations for it. Do you admit you were incorrect?

No dude, I don't admit anything. They used bogus calculations, and
poor simulations to explain their theory.

There is a video shot by someone near the base of one of the towers that nearly killed them. I cannot link the video cause youtube is blocked here but I am sure you can look for it yourself or someone else can link it. In this video the collapse is nearer 15 secs. The only parts which hit the ground in 10 secs were the free falling parts which had been seperated from the structure.

Where is your source that the collapse of each tower was 10 secs. You made the initial claim.

"nearer 15 seconds"

Wow, I'll give you that extra 5 seconds! You don't see anything wrong
with that?

Ten seconds was taken from several video sources. YouTube is not
blocked here (you can still link videos).

 

[nicepants]

Why should I reply to you? You're just as bad as Wildcat for twisting stuff
aronud, just like in your signature.

Those parts in bold are adjectives/verbs to describe the core section and how it reacted
in the video.

I didn't twist anything around....you asked me a question about a steel structure telescoping, and when I answered it you made a remark about a steel object driving itself into the ground, which is a completely different scenario. It's you who is doing the twisting.

Use any term/word you like for the core columns driving down vertically,
if that makes you feel any better.

The word "falling" would suffice. Telescoping is something entirely different.

Like I said many times before , you are good at picking at trivial points
and overlooking the more important message.

You think the distinction between a solid steel object and a steel structure is trivial? That's probably why you don't understand a lot of what is being discussed....for example:

And shooting out over 350 feet laterally? Gravity huh?

You know what's weird? I dropped a glass the other day, it fell straight downward, but when it hit the floor and broke apart, the glass shards flew outwards laterally.....I didn't throw it laterally. I wonder how much further laterally the pieces would have gone if it hit with about 2 million times more energy?

 

[Turbofan]

Again with this DROPPED BS!

The upper section did NOT drop upon 'initiation' of collapse.

Everything was connected by core and perimeter columns!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

All the buckling and stuff, but you don't account for the 47 core columns in your collapse theory. To ignore that you must be stupid, or dreaming.

Thank god I don't ignore the core columns. You saw how the perimeter columns behaved, the core columns are not different. Some were completely severed by the plane impact and others were weakened to at or near their ultimate loads. You're making an argument from ignorance

Nice search skills you have there

Thank you
I also have my structures text books...
The fact that you didn't bother to search it yourself until I posted a definition indicates to me that you're selectively lazy. Good job.

And the flame bait is appreciated but failed to meet quality standards required to receive an insult in return.

And shooting out over 350 feet laterally? Gravity huh?

When you name explosives smaller than truck bombs that can send 70-ton panels 300 ft we'll discuss. But you're blowing hot air

The planes became 100-ton missiles, and they failed to accomplish the amazing feat your fantasy explosives managed. Congratulations, you proved my point

There was more than enough energy in the collapse alone to do this.

The same ones that demo a building in 10 seconds, and launch tons of
steel 350+ feet away...also cutting through other buildings (WTC 7 )

Is failure a hobby for you? Do you take pride in quote mining your sources? Do you take pride in using wrong numbers (like your 10-second collapse idiocy)?

Nice answer, you proved me right, you can't answer the question. THankyou for debunking yourself.

They know they'd expose the explosives by attempting an explanation.

In your fantasy maybe, but we adults like to think things in reality. The collapse was straightforward without the need for explosives or controlled demolition to explain it.

I would expect to see an object with considerable mass reseting at the base
to explain the demolition of the towers in about 10 seconds.

You didn't read NIST well at all:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

<Snip>

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

My suggestion: Pick up some critical thinking skills... because your 10-second collapse time is horribly wrong

I hope by now you would have learned that I don't think the core, or
perimeter columns were continous

They are however considered solid.

So steel welded in 36 ft sections is solid, yet not solid? Can you make up your mind?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No dude, I don't admit anything. They used bogus calculations, and poor simulations to explain their theory.

Really? Since you imply that you're so familiar with these calculation can you provide the correct numbers for us? Can you demonstrate to us how they are bogus?

"nearer 15 seconds"

Wow, I'll give you that extra 5 seconds! You don't see anything wrong
with that?

No actually nothing wrong... it renders your 'free fall' claim moot. It would indicate an acceleration of less than free fall (Less than 9.8 m/s^2).

Ten seconds was taken from several video sources.

Not in this one....

YouTube is not blocked here (you can still link videos).

He was not referring to the forums...