Actually, the weight of the fully loaded planes held the buildings in place, and then they secretly moved Manhattan up 1300 feet. Manhattanites never noticed because they never look that closely past the rivers anyway.
Prove me wrong.
Three?
You prove time and again that you have no knowledge of building design and lack any ability to correctly apply physics to this scenario.
Nowhere near us much as folks around here have heard about stupid models people claim simulate the actual towers.
Do you think that 200 pounds of solid wood will behave the same way as a live human being when shot with a rifle?
Hint: No, it won’t.
Your tree stump has as much in common with a person as your model of toothpicks and washers does with an actual building. More, probably, since at least you’ve specified the tree should weigh as much as the person.
Nothing. A tree isn’t anything like a skyscraper.
I don’t understand your point here. The basic plan of the WTC is not hard to find online, and the floors were an inferno. If there wasn’t a lot of heat, what is it, exactly, you think fire does?
I’m finding it hard to believe the WTC conpiracy theorists have ever even seen steel being worked in a factory. If you make it hot, it loses its strength. That’s how blacksmiths work.
First of all, cite, please. NIST had a furnace large enough to test a 4-floor, one-acre sized steel building?
They don’t have to test unprotected steel because it’s done in factories every day. I’ve seen steel bars heated to high temperatures. They become bendy. I have personally witnessed it. It’s too obvious and stupid a thing to even test. That’s one of the ways fabricators bend heavy steel.
I’m not American, and Newtonian physics have nothing to do with the properties of heated steel. You’re the one who inexplicably thinks that it was the force of the airplanes that knocked the towers over. Or something.
There is just one problem with the linked video.
It in no way models the structure of the WTC.
In the model, flat washers are supported by pieces of paper under them. In addition there is no load on the washers other than the weight of the washer above.
In the real world, you have the core structure and the perimeter walls. spanning them are the spandrels. they are bolted to the perimeter walls and the core, not supported by them.
A better model would be an IKEA bookshelf Like this one
Now lets pull some number straight out of my ass. Lets say that each shelf can support 50 lbs (IRL the weight of desks, chairs etc) and in reality each floor supports about 35 lbs. Further lets say each shelf weighs 10 lbs.
You have a pane hit the tower, the perimeter walls are damaged and have issue with support of the structure above. The fire burns and the steel in the spandrels is weakened. the weakened steel pulls away from the core and perimeter walls. The floor collapses.
Now lets go back to the IKEA bookshelf. Due to the impact and the fire, the supports on one side fail and the shelf falls. Below it you have a shelf that will support 50 lbs. It already has 35 lbs on it, and descending on it is 45 lbs (35 load + 10 for the shelf). Now you have 35 (existing load) +45 lbs (load from shelf above + weight of shelf above) means shelf below is presented with a 80 Lb. load. 50lbs is the design maximum. What do you think will happen?
the next shelf down is will be subject to a 130 lb load with a design of 50 lbs. Think the collapse will stop there?
bottom line it goes all the way to the ground
ivan, I’m curious. Have you ever tried arguing with a Young Earth Creationist? Did you have any success?
That some people can hold to beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence isn’t unusual. It doesn’t mean their beliefs have a whit of merit.
BTW, just to be clear, here you’re the Young Earth Creationist.
They are not even remotely the same, so you are way off beam. My alluding to secret cabals, high-tech destructive devices, and most people’s willingness to believe any bs if it’s told by someone wearing a suit, or a lab technician’s jacket, is far more likely than any theory that involves supernatural agents. Put it this way; in 50 yrs we’ll know things about the events surrounding 9/11 that we don’t know today. I’d place any amount you’d like to wager that there will be no clearing up of the God issue by that time.
ivan: my knowledge of what happened on 9/11 is backed up by scientific fact and evidence.
Yours is not back up, but instead based on an odd mistrust you have concerning human motivation. We could continue to throw proven fact after proven at you and people like you, but your underlining mistrust will prevent you from ever applying correct logic to it.
The people who believe the accepted analysis of 9/11 are your everyday, think-for-themselves people who apply logic instead of bias.
Truthers, on the other hand, are people who accept lies from others without applying any form of logic, because for them, bias and prejudice prevents any logical thinking their brain may attempt.
It is really sad the lengths you people will go to in order to manufacture doubt. It is even more sad to think what low regard you show for the intelligence of your fellow human.
What’s even sadder is that you have to use the “people like you” label to bolster your “argument”, and that you think you know anything about me as a person based on my opinions regarding this subject.
You are welcome to elaborate on your “people like you” descriptor if you want to embarrass yourself even more.
ps. The fact that you believe doubt needs manufacturing is more wrong-headed than my belief that there are sections of the planet’s populace that think the vast majority of the human race are expendable liabilities.
“People like you” = truthers.
I got that. Trouble is, it’s as faulty as me assuming all Derbunkers are alike.
What some of you seem to be suggesting is that I could be fed any diet of bullshit and not be able to determine it from a well-cooked meal. There’s a challenge for you lot. Try and give me a bullshit story along any lines, and see if I can’t rip it apart.
[quote=“Rick, post:327, topic:547182”]
You’re comparing that model to the WTC design ? You forgot one little important fact. You know those pesky little airplanes that crashed into the towers weaking the structure. I didn’t see any damaged washers in your “model”. You didn’t see any gaping holes in the buildings that day that the rest of us saw ?
That’s a big fail when it comes to civil engineering right there. Hence your model fails, not to mention your scale, materials and design is so out of wack.
The American Society of Civil Engineers ACSE did a peer reviewed study on the collapse of the towers which the conclusion was that the towers were brought down by fire due to airplanes striking the building. Its pretty easy to find look it up.
So your either implying,
A) These engineers are wrong you know better even though you don’t have any degree in civil engineering.
or,
B) the ACSE is now part of the conspiracy an organization with 1000’s of members and they’re all keeping quiet.
Is it A, B or both ?
Note: Based on your comments section from your video you may want to convince other truthers out there before you bring your dog and pony show to the rest of us because it looks like alot of them are upset with you.
Ok here’s one for you to rip apart.
When I let go of an apple it falls to the ground and not towards the sky, what gives ?
You want me to explain gravity, something the planet’s best scientists still can’t grasp completely?
Did they also do a study to see what the effects of different amounts of deliberately placed explosives intended to bring about a gravity-induced collapse, might look like?
Nope, because there was NO evidence of explosives found. Likewise, they did not do a study to see the what the effects of a miniature black hole on such a structure would be, and they also did not do a study to see what the effects of secret government telekinetics on such a structure would be.