'What about building 7'?

[Kid Eager]

This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.

Boo hoo hoo. That nasty man is calling my forum bad names. I will cease acting in a rational manner in order to avoid further bad names being used.

Tell me again why you haven't been able to prove your assertions through evidence. You know, something that, say, the 99.99% of the engineers who aren't members of AE911 would agree that substantiates your CD hypothesis?

 

[jaydeehess]

What do you think causes weight? The reality is all objects on the face of the earth are all being accelerated towards the center of the earth, but when an equal force reaction is applied it keeps it from having any movement.

In the equation for weight

Weight = mass x gravity

the term "gravity" stands for gravitational acceleration. When the reaction is removed the acceleration generates velocity. If you walk over a hidden hole covered with light hay on it you will fall downward and gain velocity, while beforehand you would have been on solid ground with a reaction force equal to your weight and thus no velocity was generated. However, an acceleration was being applied to your mass both before and after you stepped into the hole.

Nice high school level misapprehension of the physics.

The towers sat happliy for decades under the force due to gravity acting on the mass of the structure and the earth supplying a reaction force countering it.

The continued efficacy of that reaction force requires the structure remain intact.
Part of the structure became no intact and no longer was capable of supplying sufficient reaction force ... this part is important...
to keep the portion above that discontinuity from accelerating. The reaction force at that level was less than that of the force on the mass above.
You mention stepping on a light grass covering. Yes, again now you step onto something incapable of supplying sufficient reaction to balance the force due to gravity acting on your mass. Plus the force due to your downward motion, the dynamic force.
Back to a structure now with a dynamic force acting on the lower part of the, now, disturbed, structural systems.

I ask others if perhaps this is a better description of the high school level phydics Tony was attempting to describe.

 

[DGM]

I ask others if perhaps this is a better description of the high school level phydics Tony was attempting to describe.

I think he was just trying to show the buildings had a weight that could be calculated. Past that..............no idea.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nice high school level misapprehension of the physics.

The towers sat happliy for decades under the force due to gravity acting on the mass of the structure and the earth supplying a reaction force countering it.

The continued efficacy of that reaction force requires the structure remain intact.
Part of the structure became no intact and no longer was capable of supplying sufficient reaction force ... this part is important...
to keep the portion above that discontinuity from accelerating. The reaction force at that level was less than that of the force on the mass above.
You mention stepping on a light grass covering. Yes, again now you step onto something incapable of supplying sufficient reaction to balance the force due to gravity acting on your mass. Plus the force due to your downward motion, the dynamic force.
Back to a structure now with a dynamic force acting on the lower part of the, now, disturbed, structural systems.

I ask others if perhaps this is a better description of the high school level phydics Tony was attempting to describe.

Your first problem is you don't realize that the North Tower collapse initiated at the 98th floor which was nearly fully intact with NIST showing only one or two exterior columns damaged. The aircraft had impacted between the 95th and 96th floors, so the 97th floor did not have a lot of damage either. To cause a vertical progression first the columns on the 98th floor would need to be sufficiently heated, but there is no physical evidence of that. Next there would need to be a dynamic load to defeat the factor of safety which still existed below and is why there was not an immediate collapse.

Dynamic load is an amplified load consisting of the static load plus the dynamic amplification. In equation form it would be

Force = mg + m(deceleration)

Where the m(deceleration) component is the dynamic amplification. Thus a dynamic force or load requires deceleration. When the North Tower (WTC 1) upper section descent was measured it showed no deceleration. This means there was no dynamic load. The structure had a factor of safety of at least 3 to 1 in the core and 5 to 1 on the exterior. This means it could support at least three times the static load without collapse even with 15% of its columns removed. Without a deceleration and dynamic load there is no natural collapse explanation.

The reality is that the initiation and the vertical progression were due to artificial weakening by the legs (core columns) being taken out from under it and pulling the exterior columns inward and causing them to buckle due to eccentric loading. Of course, the Styptics here will cry foul and try to come up with all kinds of fraudulent excuses because that is what they do, hence this forum should be called the International Styptics Forum.

 

[DGM]

When the North Tower (WTC 1) upper section descent was measured it showed no deceleration.

So the debris outside of the collapse was falling faster than g? Did the upper section of the North tower fall at the acceleration of gravity? If not, there had to be a deceleration.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

So, not only did the bad guys manage to make WTC 1 damage WTC 7 without disrupting the carefully arranged charges, in a feat that has never been close to duplicated before or since, but they also managed to direct the collapse of 1 in a way that it would set 7 on fire in a very precise manner, which we have also never seen the like of.

Which Tony claims is actually more plausible than a building on fire collapsing in a way that it set another, smaller building on fire. Apparently, bits of a collapsing 1,800 ft tower can't move 350 ft.

Agreed. The conclusions one has to jump to in order to swallow this crazy story are absurd.

 

[ProBonoShill]

This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.

Hey Tony, care to explain why these groups could care less about you and your little group of twoofer buddies?

Will you and your used car salesman buddy Dicky Gage be contacting them anytime soon? I mean it's only been 14 years.


http://www.seaint.org/

http://www.istructe.org/

http://www.iabse.org/

http://www.istructe.org/finding-a-st...bers-directory

http://www.b-ase.org/

http://www.seanm.org/

http://www.seaon.org/

https://www.facebook.com/NCSEA

http://www.seaoc.org/

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So the debris outside of the collapse was falling faster than g? Did the upper section of the North tower fall at the acceleration of gravity? If not, there had to be a deceleration.

The deceleration would be that beyond g. In other words, it would have to decelerate at a rate greater than 32.2 ft/sec/sec to have a dynamic load amplification. If you think not moving at the rate of g is some form of deceleration then you simply don't understand what the term means.

By the way, based on what I have seen you say over the years you are one of those I would consider a Styptic. Your job seems to be to keep that official story from hemorrhaging. It is too late though. We know what really happened.

 

[DGM]

The deceleration would be that beyond g. In other words, it would have to decelerate at a rate greater than 32.2 ft/sec/sec to have a dynamic load amplification. If you think not moving at the rate of g is some form of deceleration then you simply don't understand what the term means.
.

Wrong. Unless something is falling at free-fall it has to have an apposing force. Was the upper block ever falling at free-fall? Did you take physics in high school?

 

[JayUtah]

The media and adademia as institutions have avoided discussions about all aspects of 9/11.

How many ways do you have to tell us you're routinely ignored? We get it. Trust me. Truthers had a modest run ten years ago, but are no longer newsworthy, Pick up and move on.

You are a disgraced forum because JREF had to get rid of you because you were ruining its reputation and income...

Yet it's still something you say you need. Why? I think because your own outlets attract no attention and the mainstream ignores you.

...and helping us recruit people to the truth movement.

Something you can't seem to do effectively by yourself on the merits of your claims and through your own outlets?

Why are you focusing your recruitment efforts on the lay public? If your group is serious about being scientists and doing real science, why don't you behave like other scientists?

Truthers have no trouble finding extremely respected "mainstream" architects and engineers from AIA Fellows to NASA veterans to speak on our behalf about the demolition evidence,

Looking at the percentages, it seems like you're having quite a lot of trouble. Only a fraction of a percentage of the relevant qualified experts have said they agree with you, and of them a lot of them seem to be unable to articulate the claims of the organization -- quite a lot seem to have political activism things to say. Few if any seem willing to publish in the mainstream journals etc. on it. I notice you include Anders Bjorkman among your list of "extremely respected mainstream" experts. Why is it these allegedly eminent practitioners seem to have taken so long to sway their respective professional and academic fields?

...but you people cannot find a single one of that caliber to represent you.

We are not a "you people." Didn't you get that the first time? You're not disputing a "you people," you're disputing the entirety of science, which is almost unanimously against you. You first have to show you rise to their level of attention, which you cannot do. Truthers, like other conspiracy theorists, seem to have a very highly inflated opinion of their credibility outside their walled gardens.

 

[Belz...]

The deceleration would be that beyond g.

You really should stop watching all those movies, Tony, and start dealing with reality.

 

[NoahFence]

I liked the idea that a massive airliner striking the 96th floor should do no damage to the 97th.

Best and brightest.

 

[jaydeehess]

Tony your simplistic view depends upon the entire upper section hitting the entire lowet srction as if they are solid blocks.
They aren't.
Its been pointed out numetous times that when collaose ensues the load bearing vertical structural members CANNOT be in.line. Therefore no jolt. The dynamic forces in play are directed at/on the floor pans. Dynamic force, ie impulse, is the change in momentum over time. However it is easy to see that the impulse to the floor pans will be first delivered by the column sections spearing through them then the upper floor will.impact lower floor. The floor pans stand no chance of halting the collapse.
Columns are stripped of lateral support while falling debris violently buffets the interior of the structure.

All of which is OT in thus thread anyway.

 

[jaydeehess]

Tony your simplistic view depends upon the entire upper section hitting the entire lower section as if they are solid blocks.
They aren't.
Its been pointed out numerous times that when collapse ensues the load bearing vertical structural members CANNOT be in.line. Therefore no jolt. The dynamic forces in play are directed at/on the floor pans. Dynamic force, ie impulse, is the change in momentum over time. However it is easy to see that the impulse to the floor pans will be first delivered by the column sections spearing through them then the upper floor will.impact lower floor. The floor pans stand no chance of halting the collapse.
Columns are stripped of lateral support while falling debris violently buffets the interior of the structure.

All of which is OT in thus thread anyway.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony your simplistic view depends upon the entire upper section hitting the entire lowet srction as if they are solid blocks.
They aren't.
Its been pointed out numetous times that when collaose ensues the load bearing vertical structural members CANNOT be in.line. Therefore no jolt. The dynamic forces in play are directed at/on the floor pans. Dynamic force, ie impulse, is the change in momentum over time. However it is easy to see that the impulse to the floor pans will be first delivered by the column sections spearing through them then the upper floor will.impact lower floor. The floor pans stand no chance of halting the collapse.
Columns are stripped of lateral support while falling debris violently buffets the interior of the structure.

All of which is OT in thus thread anyway.

My bolding yeah.
Though the discussion over the problems with his claim can be simplified into one sentence. His claim at its most basic level is wrong.

Because by every definition the load is dynamic even when the net acceleration is negative relative to the body being impacted. His absolutist remarks in that regard kill his claim. And the net reduction in the acceleration of the collapses proves the dynamic load situation... Whatever.... He's been told this before, for years.... For whatever reason he sticks to it. Not withstanding, that his ad hominem would have more "umph" if he didn't make those most basic of errors.

And... his WTC 7 related claims are flat out wrong at their most basic levels, because they aren't based on evidence. Will I waste more time explaining why? I and others tried a year ago. His retort is the same as a year ago. He wants to keep being wrong, fine by me, but it makes the ad homs rather feeble.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony your simplistic view depends upon the entire upper section hitting the entire lowet srction as if they are solid blocks.
They aren't.
Its been pointed out numetous times that when collaose ensues the load bearing vertical structural members CANNOT be in.line. Therefore no jolt. The dynamic forces in play are directed at/on the floor pans. Dynamic force, ie impulse, is the change in momentum over time. However it is easy to see that the impulse to the floor pans will be first delivered by the column sections spearing through them then the upper floor will.impact lower floor. The floor pans stand no chance of halting the collapse.
Columns are stripped of lateral support while falling debris violently buffets the interior of the structure.

All of which is OT in thus thread anyway.

Unless you can show a lateral force to move a 73 million lb. 12 story upper section in a horizontal way it will fall vertically in place and columns will impact columns unless the lower columns are removed or mostly removed below a point where they can't sustain the static load.

I know what dynamic force and impulsive loads are and there wasn't one in the case of the North Tower collapse as there was no deceleration.

I am sure you have seen David Chandler's video of the Balzac-Vitry building in France where the deceleration is measureable using the same methods used to measure the descent of the North tower. If not, it is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

By the way, every Verinage demolition has measureable deceleration and velocity loss. The reason the North Tower doesn't is that the core columns are being removed and the remaining resistance can't support the static load.

 

[000063]

he structure had a factor of safety of at least 3 to 1 in the core and 5 to 1 on the exterior. This means it could support at least three times the static load without collapse even with 15% of its columns removed.

Citation needed.

Also, still being vague on the actual conspiracy part.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I meant to say in earlier posts "shame on the knowing Styptics here who would help the criminals who committed 911 to evade justice and continue to harm the United States and others".

If you are just confused about what occurred on 911, or simply don't want to believe domestic players had something to do with it, please allow the law to work and don't help suspects evade justice.

 

[Ziggi]

...Yet it's still something you say you need. Why? I think because your own outlets attract no attention and the mainstream ignores you.

...Why are you focusing your recruitment efforts on the lay public? If your group is serious about being scientists and doing real science, why don't you behave like other scientists?

...Looking at the percentages, it seems like you're having quite a lot of trouble...

People associated with AE911Truth have certainly acted like scientists and published comments to NIST, written acedemic papers etc. NIST has already corrected some of its errors due to this effort, but now it is afraid and hiding behind red tape. Richard and others lecture at AIA conventions and universities etc to reach scientific audiences and that is how most of the archtect and engineering new recruits are added to our list.

But that is not enough.

Public support is ALSO needed to continue the process and this is why disucssions are kept up on internet forums. People realize that the only ones actively fighting our cause are ranting people like you, and this is why posting on forums has been helpful.

Whether or not this forum continues to gather the kind of attention it did some years ago is in doubt, and this is why I told Rick and Chris Mohr this would be a final experiment. My blog post announcing this experiment is titled A Disgraced Forum Tested One Last Time

It has been my personal opinion for some time that this forum is not worth the effort any more because it simply does not have enough following these days, and internet article/blog commenters in general no longer reference this forum...hence the "one last time"

Lastly, your continued droning on about alleged support by the majority of scientists in BS, and your inability to find anyone to represent you in public debates proves that. Most scientists simply have not read the NIST reports and know nothing about them, and are therefore by definition unable to agree or disagree with the conclusions. This may be true for 99% of them. Their silence and unwillingless to get involved does not equal support for reports they have not read.

Getting scientists to really make the effort to dig into the reports is tricky, but we have found that most that do end up supporting us, and some even become activists, speaking in public on our behalf. No-one of their caliber is willing to go against them in public debates to defend NIST. Let that sink in slowly.

Have a nice day

 

[Nonpareil]

If you are just confused about what occurred on 911, or simply don't want to believe domestic players had something to do with it, please allow the law to work and don't help suspects evade justice.

The law has worked.