Christopher Moore is an Assistant Professor of Physics at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, SC. He holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics from Virginia Commonwealth University. He lives in North Myrtle Beach, SC with his wife and two children.
9/11 Troofers like to think that they have “researched” the collapse of the Twin Towers, when most have done little more that read a few articles on Alex Jone-like websites, watched a few YouTube videos, and romped around in Troofer forums/echo-chambers. I’m a researcher by profession, so I can assure you that none of these activities rises to the level of even poor scholarly activity. This article is for those Troofers who actually want to learn how to find out what the engineering community says about the collapse. I’m guessing ZERO will actually do any of the things I list.
I’m prompted to write this by a commenter (psikeyhackr) on this post. You see, in the post I listed about a dozen peer-reviewed articles in the engineering literature that specifically discuss the Twin Towers collapse. Psikeyhackr has a YouTube video that he is pimping in which we learn that a model of “progressive collapse” leads to an average collapse acceleration less than 9.8 m/sec^2. The thing is, he is absolutely correct, and the literature AGREES with him. Of course, pointing out that the building actually DID fall with an average collapse acceleration less than 9.8 m/sec^2 is pretty pointless, since we’re talking about a Troofer. Straw men are there favorite argumentative device.
When his first straw man is pointed out, the topic of conversation is quickly changed to another straw man. He goes straight towards criticizing Frank Greening’s treatment of the problem. Greening discusses a VERY simplified model of progressive collapse in a paper that he published to the web. It’s hardly scholarly, but I don’t think that was the intent, since the audience was to be more general, hence the extremely simplified model. Again, pointing out over-simplifications in an over-simplified popular-audience article is a straw man. Why don’t we attack an ACTUAL model of progressive collapse?
The answer is, Troofers not only don’t have the requisite background to understand the model, they don’t even know how to ACCESS the model. Again, I refer to about a dozen articles in the post. I have NEVER had a Troofer even attempt to look up one of these articles. I’m guessing that they don’t know how.
Here is how its done:
- (1) Go to your local University library. You can usually walk right in and sit down at a computer.
- (2) Log on to their “library” page. For example, Virginia Commonwealth University’s page is here.
- (3) Find the Journal Database “Web of Science”. Again, at VCU you would click on “Journal Finder”, then “Database A-Z”, then “W”, then “Web of Science”. You’ll end up here. This site will only work if you are at an institution with a subscription. Most research universities will have a subscription, which is why you have to physically go to the library.
- (4) Type in some key words. I typed in “progressive collapse world trade center” and received a lot of results.
Psikeyhackr asks the following question: “So if the mass increases toward the bottom then how does that affect the supposed downward acceleration due to the conservation of momentum?”
OK. Go to the library and get this article: “Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007
Interestingly, since I gathered the list shown in the previous post, some new stuff has popped up. My favorite is the following article:
“What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?” J. Engrg. Mech. Volume 134, Issue 10, pp. 892-906 (October 2008).
The abstract:
Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01–0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas, more than 150 t of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust, and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are indeed found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.
Go to the library, get the damn article, and come back here with your Troofer nonsense if you have the stones.
You don’t need to go to the library to get this:
“Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007
That is by Bazant, you can find it on the net, it contains a lot of fancy calculus and might be impressive to some but there is a little problem with its starting assumption. You see it assumes that the top falling block of the north tower remains intact while it comes straight down and crushes everything below. Now how is that possible? What about Isaac Newton with his “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”? So if the falling top block crushes one level of the lower stationary block then doesn’t one level of the bottom of the top falling block have to be crushed? So how do 14 levels falling from the top crush 95 stationary levels below, and accelerate all the while?
The equation for conservation of momentum is:
m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3
But doesn’t anyone doing REAL PHYSICS have to have the quantities to plug into the equations. So don’t we need to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers? This applies to the aircraft collision as well as the collapse. We know the mass and velocity of the plane that hit the south tower. But what was the mass of the 81st level of the building? But this gets more complicated because the skyscraper was so much larger than the plane. Many levels above and below the impact point moved also. The NIST says the 70th level, 130 feet below the impact point, moved 12 inches. So how much steel and concrete was on each level 130 feet above and below 81?
Some people who claim they LOVE physics actually love intimidating other people with physics and mathematics. They want everything to appear far more complex than it really is. But in the process they leave out obviously necessary information. The NIST produced 10,000 pages which can be downloaded from the internet but they cannot supply us with the 232 numbers specifying the steel and concrete on every level of 400,000 ton buildings supposedly destroyed by planes weighing less than 200 tons. But some nitwits who accuse others of “pimping” can profess to LOVE physics but apparently can DO IT WITHOUT DATA.
But after almost EIGHT YEARS this says interesting things about our engineering schools. The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. They didn’t discover the NEUTRON until 1932. What kind of electronic computers did they have back then? But now the lovers of physics don’t even insist on knowing the distribution of steel and concrete in destroyed skyscrapers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN7T5ryljU
I don’t need to tell people to research peer reviewed papers.
They just need to put their brains in gear and THINK for themselves. Apparently our schools are designed to produce people that THINK WHAT THEY ARE TOLD.
psik
[...] gotten into tangles with the 9/11 Troofers on this site before. But I’m always amazed at what people will believe. The moon landing was faked! [...]
Yeah, clowns are always trying to play psychological association games.
Trying to associate 9/11 people with those that believe the Moon landing was faked. But you have it backwards. Getting to the Moon involved Newtonian physics and engineering. They apply to the World Trade Center also.
So why don’t the people that claim a 150 ton airliner can destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours want to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers? Of course they will look pretty silly demanding the information now. Why weren’t they demanding it in 2002? LOL
The equation for conservation of momentum is: m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3
Not in this case. Not even close. In fact, momentum is not even conserved. Now, you tell me why and then we can talk about your knowledge of “real” physics.
{{{ Not in this case. Not even close. In fact, momentum is not even conserved. Now, you tell me why and then we can talk about your knowledge of “real” physics. }}}
In which case? We are talking about two different events.
1. The impact of the plane against the building.
2. The supposed collapse of the building because of the top mass falling on the lower mass.
In both cases there is MORE INVOLVED than just the Conservation of Momentum. But the mass will be a significant factor in both cases therefore it must be known.
So why aren’t the people claiming they know physics demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level? The towers were 110 stories tall. Didn’t there have to be enough steel on the 100th level to support 10 stories? Didn’t there have to be enough steel on the 90th level to support 20 stories? Didn’t there have to be enough steel on the 80th level to support 30 stories? So didn’t the people who designed the building have to figure out how much steel to put on every level? So why haven’t you people that LOVE PHYSICS been asking how much steel was on every level of WTC1 and WTC2 for the last EIGHT YEARS?
Isn’t this Newtonian physics? Wasn’t knowledge of Newtonian physics necessary to get to the Moon? Weren’t those buildings designed before the Moon landing? Even if the planes did bring the towers down wouldn’t you need that information to analyze how it happened?
In both cases there is MORE INVOLVED than just the Conservation of Momentum.
In both cases, momentum is not conserved, so in EITHER case the conservation of momentum isn’t involved AT ALL. Now answer the question: why isn’t momentum conserved? It’s simple “grade school” physics.
You are the one that keeps claiming that the collapse of a modern skyscraper is a simple “grade-school” physics problem. I have said that it is indeed a very difficult problem requiring calculus to model in even the most simplified one-dimensional analysis, and computer analysis for anything more rigorous. You bring up the conservation of momentum when that particular principle has ZERO relevance to the problem. When called out on it, all of the sudden the problem is more involved. OK, then. Let me see your mathematical model for the collapse of the Twin Towers.
The papers you claim to have read and understood specifically address the mass distribution question that you keep bringing up. That you cannot understand that because of a weak background in “fancy” calculus is not the fault of the authors, and is certainly no argument against their works validity. It didn’t take engineers eight years to ask that question. It took them somewhere around 48 hours. Then they answered it.
The problem you have is that they do not specifically tell you something that is not possible to know in the detail that you want it. They make reasonable assumptions about the mass distribution based on known facts about the buildings’ construction. They then show that progressive collapse is a viable model well within the range of reasonable values.
Try this one: “Structural response of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks,” J. Struct. Eng. 6-15 (January 2005). They go into GREAT detail about the structural design since they modeled the event using a very rigorous finite element computer analysis. The only information they did not have, and therefore had to use reasonable assumptions for, was the thickness of each floor.
{{{ The papers you claim to have read and understood specifically address the mass distribution question that you keep bringing up. That you cannot understand that because of a weak background in “fancy” calculus is not the fault of the authors, and is certainly no argument against their works validity. It didn’t take engineers eight years to ask that question. It took them somewhere around 48 hours. Then they answered it. }}}
There were more than 2500 exterior wall panels on each tower. The NCSTAR1 report says there were 12 different types.
So why don’t you tell us the weights of each of those 12 different types? And where you gat the data? It is not in the NCSTAR1 report.
If you can’t find the data then how can you possibly say any mathematical analysis of the events was correct? Don’t people who LOVE PHYSICS have to plug correct data into their equations?
Geez, you’re dense.
Let me repeat: The problem you have is that they do not specifically tell you something that is not possible to know in the detail that you want it. They make reasonable assumptions about the mass distribution based on known facts about the buildings’ construction. They then show that progressive collapse is a viable model well within the range of reasonable values.
To answer your direct question, no, you do not need to know EXACTLY what the weights of those panels were in order to model the collapse. READ THE DAMNED PAPER!
Do you have a problem with their assumptions? Specifically address why you believe their assumptions and value ranges are unreasonable. Why do you feel it is necessary to know the EXACT values? What level of precision is necessary before the “correct” answer can be known? Three significant figures? 5? 20?
Also, I noticed that you once again failed to answer my simple “grade school” physics question: why isn’t momentum conserved?
{{{ It didn’t take engineers eight years to ask that question. It took them somewhere around 48 hours. Then they answered it. }}}
Oh really? Then why does the NCSTAR1 report say this?
{{{ 2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations
Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact. }}}
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74
They didn’t have the data in the fall of 2003. That is a lot longer than 48 hours. I doesn’t seem you did too much research.
But after almost EIGHT YEARS you are stuck having to defend PHYSICS AUTHORITY. Too bad it is actually crappy physics.
Sorry, they changed their link:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5D%20Ceilings.pdf
{{{ Also, I noticed that you once again failed to answer my simple “grade school” physics question: why isn’t momentum conserved? }}}
We are not dealing with two bodies in space like a simple problem from a physics book. Energy is being lost bending steel and cracking concrete. But that does not mean that the energy involved in moving thousands of tons of mass can be ignored. Therefore we need accurate information on the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers.
So why haven’t physics people all over the country been demanding that info since early 2002. NIST admitted they didn’t have it in 2003. So what was Bazant talking about in 2001? LOL
So why haven’t physics people all over the country been demanding that info since early 2002. NIST admitted they didn’t have it in 2003. So what was Bazant talking about in 2001?
In 2001 Bazant was talking about a rough estimate. He made this rough estimate within about 48 hours. Why? Because it was one hell of an interesting engineering problem.
Over the course of eight years, Bazant and over a dozen other research groups have refined their work, developed more sophisticated estimates, and produced a model that fits the available data within a reasonable margin for error. That is how science is done. We have to make assumptions for damned near everything. There is hardly ever a time when ALL of the data is available. It turns out, the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse fit when reasonable assumptions are made, despite uncertain values of some parameters. The free fall hypothesis does not, even if you use completely unreasonable estimates.
So what have 9/11 “Truthers” done in the past eight years? Show me a single mathematical model that describes the collapse based on a controlled demolition premise. If you think Bazant’s model sucks, then show me a better model.
We are not dealing with two bodies in space like a simple problem from a physics book.
I though you said that this was a “grade school” physics problem?! Now, all of the sudden it is more complicated?
Energy is being lost bending steel and cracking concrete. But that does not mean that the energy involved in moving thousands of tons of mass can be ignored.
I never said energy wasn’t conserved. MOMENTUM is not conserved. Why? Come on, now. This is a simple “grade school” physics question. Why isn’t MOMENTUM conserved? Bending steel and cracking concrete is part of it, but by far not the more fundamental reason.
{{{ Over the course of eight years, Bazant and over a dozen other research groups have refined their work, developed more sophisticated estimates, and produced a model that fits the available data within a reasonable margin for error. }}}
And you decide what a is reasonable margin of error but you can’t tell us the quantity and weights of the 12 different types of exterior wall panels and neither can the NIST.
So you can leave out whatever information you want and anyone that doesn’t accept your conclusion must be STUPID. So 40 years after the Moon landing we can’t get a table specifying the steel and concrete on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing. ROFLMAO
Peons be proud of your ignorance and Trust in AUTHORITY!
The college physics teachers are making the world safe for Truth, Justice and the American Way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN7T5ryljU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc
And you decide what a is reasonable margin of error but you can’t tell us the quantity and weights of the 12 different types of exterior wall panels and neither can the NIST.
Steel has a specific density. The basics of the construction are well known, so its pretty easy to a get a reasonable estimate of the size and shape of damn near everything. From that, you can get a reasonable estimate of the weight and the distribution.
Even better, you can come up with a value for the distribution, vary that value, and see what happens in the model. Bazant did exactly that. The model works for a LARGE range of values.
Unfortunately, you want an exact answer, which no one can give you. Even with the exact answer you are looking for, there would still have to be basic assumptions built in to ANY model. That is how science is done.
Now, I ask again: Show me a single mathematical model that describes the collapse based on a controlled demolition premise.
Also: Why isn’t MOMENTUM conserved?
{{{ Also: Why isn’t MOMENTUM conserved? }}}
Do you have some kind of reading issue?
((( We are not dealing with two bodies in space like a simple problem from a physics book. Energy is being lost bending steel and cracking concrete. But that does not mean that the energy involved in moving thousands of tons of mass can be ignored. Therefore we need accurate information on the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. }}}
{{{ Steel has a specific density. The basics of the construction are well known, so its pretty easy to a get a reasonable estimate of the size and shape of damn near everything. From that, you can get a reasonable estimate of the weight and the distribution. }}}
So contact Richard Gage and ask him why he and his engineer buddies haven’t done it. I asked him at one of his seminars and he said the NIST wasn’t releasing accurate blueprints.
It is easy to claim stuff can be done. Why don’t you tell us something as simple as the total amount of concrete in the towers and where that information is in the NCSTAR1 report. If it is so easy then why didn’t the NIST do it already? What is that 10,000 pages for anyway?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/
Haven’t you researched it since you are so BIG on research? You don’t even have to go to a library. It is so curious that you need to make excuses for them after the fact.
Do you have some kind of reading issue?
Nope.
Energy is being lost bending steel and cracking concrete.
Once again, since you obviously DO have a reading issue, let me repeat: I never said energy wasn’t conserved. MOMENTUM is not conserved. Why isn’t MOMENTUM conserved? Bending steel and cracking concrete is part of it, but by far not the more fundamental reason.
It is easy to claim stuff can be done.
And even easier to point to the engineering papers where this stuff HAS been done. That is the entire freaking point! There is an entire engineering article by the Bazant research group where they discuss the mass distribution of the building.
Let me repeat, because you can’t seem to comprehend things the first time: WHAT YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR DOES NOT EXIST, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY!
Now, let me ask you one more time: Show me a single mathematical model that describes the collapse based on a controlled demolition premise.
Uhm, correct me if I am wrong, but controlled demolitions are well enough studied.
All you need for the controlled demolition hypothesis is for the central columns to be knocked out. This matches the model released by NIST, except they didn’t explain how that happened. It also matches the observed behaviour of the event. It also matches the temperatures in the basement after the collapse and it matches the thermite found in the dust.
Sometimes the elegant explanation really is the right one.
{{{ WHAT YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR DOES NOT EXIST, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY! }}}
So you CLAIM!
How many time do I have to tell you that we don’t have the numbers and weights of the exterior wall panels. There were more than 2500 of them on each building. They were what made up the perimeter columns. They were the first structural members that the airliners hit. They supported 50% of the weight of the building all of the way down to the 10th level where they were merged into the trees.
There were 76 wall panels around the building every 36 feet. The NCSTAR1 report says the south tower deflected 12 inches on plane impact at the 70th level. That was 130 feet below the impact point. So the building should have deflected at least 12 inches 130 feet above at the 92nd level also. So that would be 548 wall panels pushed 12 in less than 2 seconds. HOW MANY TONS WAS THAT? We only know the weight of the heaviest wall panel type which was 22 tons. Those had to be near the bottom of the building. So we need to know the number and weights to understand where the transitions between wall panels took place.
So if all of those panels were 10 tons apiece that would be 5,480 moved by the impact. But that doesn’t count the floor slabs and trusses and the core. And you think this is irrelevant information? You just expect everyone to toe the line and BELIEVE in AUTHORITY.
Have you found the total for the concrete yet?
psik
{{{ Uhm, correct me if I am wrong, but controlled demolitions are well enough studied. }}}
I never said anything about a con_______ dem_______.
I am saying that to analyze the destruction of a skyscraper, supposedly by the impact of an airlier, you must know the distribution of mass, especially the steel and concrete. So why don’t we have it from the NIST after almost EIGHT YEARS?
So how much steel was on levels 81, 80, 82, 79 and 83 of the south tower?
OMG! More Research!
http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf
Honestly, all that pdf is good for is toilet paper.
If I had to pick one line that declares the paper to be the crap that it is, it is thus:
“Why has no high-rise in any industrial nation ever collapsed from fire?”
The question should actually be:
“What other high-rises have been struck by high-speed Boeing 767s, burned, and then collapsed due to structural failure caused by severe impact trauma and avgas-, paper-, and plastic-fueled fires?”
The answer to this question is TWO. The WTC tower collapses were unprecedented. They could not be compared to any other situation before.
Come on psikeyhackr, get a grip.
{{{ “What other high-rises have been struck by high-speed Boeing 767s, burned, and then collapsed due to structural failure caused by severe impact trauma and avgas-, paper-, and plastic-fueled fires?” }}}
Oh sure, the south tower stopped the plane in 0.6 seconds and only moved 14 inches.
My God! What a brilliant engineer!
Recognizing structural failure without even knowing or asking about the distribution of steel. How is it that the south tower only deflected 14 inches on impact and yet the building broke and the bottom of that upper portion moved laterally TWENTY FEET in a few seconds 52 minutes after the impact oscillation stopped?
But you brilliant engineers don’t even want to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers but people are supposed to be in awe of your ignorance and lack of curiosity. But you LOVE PHYSICS! ROFL
What is wrong with you psikeyhackr? I just started taking my first semester of physics in fall. So far we haven’t learned anything yet except vectors and I can figure out the author is absolutely right!
But I actually do know what is wrong with you, now that I think about it; you don’t bother to understand anything he is saying. You assume he is wrong right off the bat.
Besides that I recommend to look up what models are and what they are used for. Or I’ll just wing it and tell you:
Models are like spreadsheets, you put data in you get info out, you play around and you get crazy results. But you can predict what would happen with certain numbers. Then you test it out and figure out that you screwed up. So your model is off. Then you make a better model.
Eventually you are able to get a model that works and bam Twin Towers conspiracy is crap.
Excuse my grammar, I’m bad at English.
{{{ What is wrong with you psikeyhackr? I just started taking my first semester of physics in fall. So far we haven’t learned anything yet except vectors and I can figure out the author is absolutely right! }}}
The author is right about WHAT?
What are these models and spreadsheets supposed to do without the correct data? Where do you have the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC?
1. Planes struck the towers.
2. Besides massive structural damage, fires raged over many floors.
3. The damaged towers couldn’t hold themselves up anymore (fire and structural damage are NOT a building’s friends).
4. The towers fell.
Now what the hell are you trying to say? Actually SAY IT. State your point clearly. Quit asking the one repetitive question – state your reason for asking it.
{{{ 1. Planes struck the towers.
2. Besides massive structural damage, fires raged over many floors.
3. The damaged towers couldn’t hold themselves up anymore (fire and structural damage are NOT a building’s friends).
4. The towers fell.
Now what the hell are you trying to say? Actually SAY IT. }}}
You are saying NOTHING. What were the distributions of steel and concrete?
I already have a video showing the effect of satationary masses slowing and stopping a top down gravitational collapse. Why aren’t you demonstrating your LOVVE OF PHYSICS by demanding to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers and trying to determine if the collapse was possible? You are just demonstrating BELIEF not showing your competence at science. You can’t tell us the amount of steel in the impact zones.
“(fire and structural damage are NOT a building’s friends).”
ROFLMAO
What does friendship have to do with physics? The amount of steel is relevant. Too silly!
[...] can see why you find him credible … birds of a feather stuff !!! Are you really that easy ??? http://www.ilovephysics.com/2009/07/…-911-truthers/ [...]
You LOVE the truth. Wonderful!
Now explain the collapse of the 47 story tower WTC 7: not hit by a plane, a few small fires inside, deliberately set (by whom?). Collapsed straight down into, its own footprint, with the acceleration of free fall. Housing the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the Enron records, it was one of the most secure buildings on the planet. Why were there traces of thermite and thermate in its ruins? Why were the massive steel pillars cut into small pieces?
Your discussion of the twin towers indicates you do not know basic mechanics; I do.
First, WTC7 did not “collapse into its own footprint.” Second, the fires were several orders of magnitude larger than “a few small fires”. Third, the building did not fall with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. It took at least 16 seconds for the building to completely collapse from initiation. And finally, there is no evidence of thermite. Furthermore, you have ZERO evidence that the fires were “intentionally set”.
Everything you have said is complete bullshit.
Thermite: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
WTC7: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Let’s not get confused by facts.
WTC7 – 186 m height.
Free fall: 6.16 sec
Actual collapse time: 7.6 +/- 0.4 sec.
You had I have seen the videos of the collapse many times.
Neither before nor since 09/11/01 has any skyscraper collapsed because
of fire. This includes buildings that were completely gutted in fires lasting a day.
How were the fires in WTC 7 set? Perhaps its shatterproof windows were all left open and a large pump was sucking the burning jet fuel from inside WTC 1 and 2?
Sir, you are the expert on “bullshit”.
I have seen the videos of the collapse many times.
Yet in those videos, you conveniently ignore the several seconds that the east penthouse collapses. You also completely ignore the seismic record (which is far more accurate), that shows parts of the building hitting the ground for 18 seconds.
Neither before nor since 09/11/01 has any skyscraper collapsed because
of fire.
This is completely true. This is exactly why the collapse has been studied in great detail by actual engineers in the field, and the results published in peer-reviewed articles. I list many of those articles here:
http://www.ilovephysics.com/2008/07/01/911-troofers-are-idiots/
Included in that list is an article discussing building code changes instituted BECAUSE of the unprecedented WTC collapse.
How were the fires in WTC 7 set?
During the North Tower collapse, the antenna fell and cut through the façade of Building 7. The most likely cause of the fires was ruptured fuel lines leading to large fuel storage tanks used by New York City’s emergency services.
“Prof. Harley Flanders”/psikeyhackr, a few particular BS statements stand out (although one has so many of your BS statements to choose from).
“Now explain the collapse of the 47 story tower WTC 7: not hit by a plane, a few small fires inside, deliberately set (by whom?). Collapsed straight down into, its own footprint, with the acceleration of free fall.”
Right, wrong, wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG.
Notice the only ting you got right there was that WTC7 was not struck by a plane. It was, in fact, struck by a collapsing skyscraper. One of the tallest buildings in the world, to boot. Why do troofers always leave this not-so-minor detail out?
“Housing the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the Enron records, it was one of the most secure buildings on the planet.”
Mmm, yeah, right. Please go into detail regarding the classification levels contained within the building, and what agencies are responsible for monitoring and approving said classification levels. Go ahead, give us some more information on all that.
{{{ “Now explain the collapse of the 47 story tower WTC 7: not hit by a plane, a few small fires inside, deliberately set (by whom?). Collapsed straight down into, its own footprint, with the acceleration of free fall.”
Right, wrong, wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. }}}
Oh right, just ignore that Bejing hotel fire where a building of similar size had a far bigger fire that burned longer and
IT DIDN’T COLLAPSE.
SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7880348.stm
Shouldn’t people that love physics want accurate data about their subjects undergoing analysis. Consider the complete floor assemblies in the towers, the concrete slabs, the rebar mesh embedded in the concrete, the corrugated steel pans that the concrete was poured onto, and the multiple 35 foot and 60 foot trusses that the pans were mounted on. There had to be about 200 of those complete assemblies used in those two buildings.
IN EIGHT YEARS have you ever seen anyone specify how much the whole thing weighed?
It shouldn’t be too difficult to compute the weight of just the concrete.
The external dimensions of the building was 208 feet square and the core was 87 by 135. The pans were corrugated steel so the slab thickness varied between 4 and 5 inches. I have seen pictures of the edge so I use 4.333 inches.
(205 *205 – (87*135))*(4.333/12) = 10933.60
So one slab was almost 11,000 cubic feet of concrete. This was the light weight type and only 110 lb per cubic foot.
So that is 601 tons for just the concrete slab.
So why do we never see the specification for the entire assembly. Shouldn’t the lovers of physics have wanted that information long ago? It’s only been EIGHT YEARS!
Man Psik, your claims are just getting more and more ridiculous. First you tried to compare the WTC to the Empire State building, and now you’re trying to compare WTC7 to a 34 story building in Beijing? Oh do please explain how you think those two buildings were even remotely similar. Be sure to include the part where a building had just fallen down on top of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel prior to the initiation of the fires.
I have seen pictures of the edge so I use 4.333 inches.
You are just too much. Why try to figure things out from pictures when the data is there there in the report? Have you read the report yet? If you really were that concerned why don’t you FOIA the S-A and SCA series documents?
This should be quoted multiple times so everyone can recognize your devotion to TRUTH and PRECISION in physics.
“Be sure to include the part where a building had just fallen down on top of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel prior to the initiation of the fires.”
“Be sure to include the part where a building had just fallen down on top of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel prior to the initiation of the fires.”
“Be sure to include the part where a building had just fallen down on top of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel prior to the initiation of the fires.”
So you are implying that A BUILDING fell down ON TOP of WTC7. ROFL
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Hit1.jpg
Yes.
Here is a link to a picture. (if this works)
http://media.photobucket.com/image/wtc%207/shampooza/political/l_129434fbc0a5622424b8a720f74708f2.jpg?o=1
http://media.photobucket.com/image/wtc%207/shampooza/political/l_129434fbc0a5622424b8a720f74708f2.jpg?o=1
Right after WTC1 came down. Care to point out any damage to the top of the building?
Here is a picture of WTC7 during the collapse of WTC1.
http://www.layscience.net/files/wtc/2.jpg
Most of WTC1 is down and the roof of WTC7 can be seen. Do you see A BUILDING or significant portion thereof on top of WTC7? Can you recognize any damage to the top of WTC7?
“So you are implying that A BUILDING fell down ON TOP of WTC7. ROFL”
Wow… your statement makes you seem like someone who does not know that large portions of the collapsing North tower actually did strike WTC 7.
News flash, a little over 8 years late: large portions of the collapsing North tower struck WTC 7.
There you go, now you (finally) know.
I have a comment with a picture awaiting moderation, but I’ll post again for further emphasis.
I notice that you fail to explain how the Manderin Hotel should model the behavior of the WTC7 building. I notice that you haven’t responded to whether you have read the report.
What you did do was take issue with the semantics of the words “on top” and you focused your reply on those semantics. Of course, your argument is flawed because debris did strike the roof of WTC7 which by all definitions I can think of is the top of the WTC7. But that doesn’t surprise me much. All of your arguments have been flawed. Why would I expect any different?
Since we’re on the subject of precision, even though you’re not going to answer any of my other questions, I might as well ask some more if only to give my fingers some exercise.
How exactly did you achieve a precision of thousandths of an inch (4.333) by examining a picture? Was it a 1 to 1 scale digital picture at 1001 DPI? Where is this picture? I’d like to see it.
{{{ Wow… your statement makes you seem like someone who does not know that large portions of the collapsing North tower actually did strike WTC 7. }}}
He didn’t say STRIKE. He said “ON TOP OF”.
You people don’t give a damn about precision in your descriptions of anything do you?
Try telling us how many TONS of material came down ON TOP OF WTC7 versus how many TONS struck the building. Remember of course that one of the WTC7 collapse videos shows the face of the building that was facing toward WTC1. So shouldn’t that side have the most damage? How much damage do you see in the WTC7 collapse video.
How about you answer just one of my questions before you change the subject?
1. In what way does the Manderin Hotel model WTC7?
{{{ 1. In what way does the Manderin Hotel model WTC7? }}}
Where did I say “modeled”?
The Mandarin Hotel burned longer and obviously hotter than WTC7. And it not only did not collapse completely but apparently none of the steel frame collapsed at all. Just like all of the other skyscraper fires in the world except for the THREE ANOMALIES in New York on one day.
The Beijing otel was not struck by a large jet airliner, nor was it struck by a building that collapsed due to the impact (and resultant massive structural damage and fires) of a large jet airliner.
You should never have even mentioned the Beijing hotel in the first place. It had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Also, your characterizing the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 as “anomalies” is illogical and incorrect.
Yeah of course you didn’t say modeled. You don’t know what a model is. You’ve proven that with your washers and tooth picks.
If you are trying to claim that the Beijing tower should have behaved similarly to the WTC7 then you need to establish that the tower modeled the conditions present within the WTC7. On that subject you’ve fallen quite short.
{{{ Yeah of course you didn’t say modeled. You don’t know what a model is. You’ve proven that with your washers and tooth picks. }}}
I demonstrated that MASS slows down a gravitational collapse.
So why don’t you people that CLAIM TO LOVE PHYSICS demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete in WTC 1 & 2?
What were the weights and quantities of the exterior wall panels?
I provided links to pictures of WTC7 during the WTC1 collapse right after post #40 but that post kept disappearing and reappearing. So if A BUILDING FELL ON TOP of WTC7 because of the WTC1 collapse shouldn’t there be LOTS of broken windows on the front of WTC7 that faced WTC1.? Why don’t you link us to a picture showing all of those broken windows?
“I demonstrated that MASS slows down a gravitational collapse.”
Whoopee.
You demonstrated that washers set up on a wooden stick and allowed to fall will slow down based on the specific setup you made.
Your experiment has three glaring conditions:
1) completely unavoidable friction between the stick and the washers
2) only one degree of freedom for the washers (the vertical axis); the washers are severely constrained
3) washers on a stick (this is not an experiment that can be extrapolated to a larger scale due to, well, too many factors to list)
Your experiment can not be associated with the collapse of WTC7 in any way, shape, or form. There is absolutely ZERO correlation.
None.
Nada.
Nichts.
Zilch.
Let me amend that:
Your experiment can NOT be associated with the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7, or any other building (in any place or any time) in any way, shape, or form. There is absolutely ZERO correlation.
None.
Nada.
Nichts.
Zilch.
How about I link to you to a picture of the picture that I posted, but is still awaiting moderation?
(Let’s see if I can trick the filter into not realizing this is a URL) Replace the – with /
i269.photobucket.com-albums-jj77-fangbeer-PhysicsMessage.jpg
{{{ 1) completely unavoidable friction between the stick and the washers }}}
LOL
You are the second nitwit to try to make a big deal about that. But I already anticipated that when I made the video. Why do you think I have TWO MASSES falling, one on the stick and one in empty air. How much difference is there in the rate of fall?
And of course there is Fall pf Physics that someone claimed has incorrect F=M*a calculations even though it doesn’t contain any F=M*a calculations. LOL