You guys are acting like ivan askitov hasn’t seen every single 9/11 argument, counter-argument, rebuttal, and bit of evidence available on the web a minimum of 10 times. The guy has less than zero interest in the truth and it’s pointless to argue with him. Even when he eventually backs off it’s just a feint, to be totally forgotton the next time the topic comes up. We’ve been going round and round and round for literally years. Begging the sun to come up at midnight is more productive than arguing with this guy.
In order for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds it had to have an average acceleration of more than 50% of g.
So why don’t we have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level by now? It is certainly curios that the nation that put men on the Moon can’t provide that info in almost nine years on structures designed before the Moon landing.
The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers even though the steel is specified in 3 places. If mass A hits mass B isn’t it rational to expect complete data on mass B if a LOGICAL analysis is expected?
If such a collapse were possible shouldn’t our engineering schools be able to make a physical model of it?
This NASA scientist talks about a model but doesn’t build one.
psik
All true. But we do it for the lurkers.
It does not stop anyone from doing very good approximations anyhow.
(PDF file)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf
Thanks to investigations made by FEMA, the NIST and MIT one can say that your point here is not a big deal.
Bingo.
A LOT of people will casually buy that some of this stuff might be true, but can be swayed by evidence.
My parents watched the Loose Change video and my mother started thinking there might be something to this. (My father did not buy it at all.) I explained why it was all bunk, using debunking websites, and she was like “Ah, you’re right. Thanks.” It’s people like her we’re trying to keep informed with the truth.
The WTC cores were steel framing, not concrete. I think the floors within the core had some concrete as a walking surface but it wasn’t structural.
That was the original speculation, but later analysis showed a different mechanism. The heat from the fires caused the floor trusses to sag under their weight (concrete surface plus office materials). The sagging floor trusses exerted a giant force to pull the perimeter columns inward, and when the perimeter columns had been pulled inward enough, they could no longer support the massive weight they were holding up above them. It was the perimeter columns which suddenly failed at the start of the collapses of each building.
I have an idea that the towers were brought down by alien spaceships flying through the buildings and zapping the metal framing with their space rays. The fact that cleanup workers were never specifically told to search for alien spaceships proves it’s true!
The last time I saw a 911 thread (which might not well have been the last 911 thread) there was someone else pulling truther duty with ivan playing semi-cheerleader for the truther but not really going into it - At the time it seemed more like someone determined to show how much he really, really mistrusted the gub’mint than anything truly trutheresque.
I had hoped there might be an abyss-walking-away-from, but it seems like pretty much the same truther story: Dodge and evade, complain, quote out of context, never ever ever admit you might have been wrong, and when you story is shown to be idiotic come up with an even more idiotic story to cover for it.
I believed that a few years ago, but 9/11 Trieuxth had its brief and dim moment in the sun around 2005 - 2007, when Google and Youtube were flooded with their nonsense, Trieuxthers were publishing books, Loose Change was being pushed on Google Video and even being broadcast on television in some places and shown in some theaters, and the NIST report on WTC7 wasn’t out yet. At that time it might’ve been genuinely hard for this hypothetical lurker (for about 5 seconds) to sort out the truth. That’s not the case anymore. Now, whenever someone responds to ivan’s tired old routine, they’re just feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . his ego.
Who said it vaporized?!
Your link must be to the wrong video, because this video at the time indexes specified in no way supports the statements that you’re making additionally there are other videos from another angle that clearly show the entire building collapsing, straight down, resulting in the giant cloud of dust and debri.
I saw part of the core still standing at that point in the video, and I’ve seen it in other camera angles. After the building falls around it, there’s nothing left to keep it standing straight up so it too collapses.
Nice hand wave. So what sort of controlled demolition was it? I just provided a details on what it took to take down a building half the size of the WTC towers. It is quite relevant actually.
Please enlighten us on what really happened.
Why, ivan did, right there. Wassamatta, you blind? 
I downloaded that report years ago. It was created by Gregory Urich and I occasionally go to his site.
Urich admits that it is wrong but he doesn’t advertise it. He admits that he took the total weight of the exterior wall panels that go from the 10th floor to the top of the building and did a linear distribution tapering toward the top. But his numbersassume that the bottom panels weigh 19 tons. But there is an article from 1970 in an engineering magazine that says the heaviest panels were 22 tons. But if you try to do a linear interpolation based on 22 tons the panels at the top must be negative.
The distribution of mass on the real buildings could not have been linear so Urich’s data is WRONG.
psik
Therefore…?
You know, Ivan, the “bodies” issue is where you really show your true colors.
First you complain that there were no bodies. Then when shown mangled bodies, you complain that the bodies are too well-preserved, I guess you imagine they should have been crushed into paste.
Except, where the did the mangled bodies come from, if they weren’t in a plane that crashed into the Pentagon? I’m trying to figure out the plan here.
“OK, Bob, we’re going to pretend a plane crashed into the Pentagon. So we need to hit it with a missile. Except we’ll need to provide bodies for the forensics crews. So round up several doezen bodies, mangle them, and stash them in the Pentagon beforehand. And the plane we’re going to pretend to crash into the Pentagon, we’ll crash it into the ocean so no one will get susipicious. What’s that? You suggest trying to crash the plane into the Pentagon, and forget the whole missile with preplanted corpses angle? But that’s crazy talk! I know it would be simpler to just crash a plane into the Pentagon and tell everyone it was terrorists, but that’s why you’re a minion and I’m an Illuminatus. We never do things the simple way.”
So was the paper withdrawn? I guess by this time you can point at the counter paper from a scientific publication, however I guess you will not be able or your criticisms were not accepted.
You are indeed missing that he points out that it remains an approximation, it is still better than working with toothpicks.
If you do know how was Urich wrong then it should be easy to apply better values to the table and do the modeling to show us then how it is impossible that the planes, fuel and fire was not the reason. So far it is clear that you are not willing to publish your “research” and face peer review.
Once again, it is thanks to the work done by others that we can say with confidence that explanations that use controlled explosions for the collapse of the towers are wrong.
Obviously it was a top secret military type of controlled demolition that results in a building collapsing just like the WTC did.
I never said anything about explosions controlled or otherwise.
I already made a better model than the one with toothpicks. The toothpicks were too strong in relation to the mass.
The laws of physics don’t give a damn about papers and peer reviews but grade school kids can build models and test them. is Newtonian physics to difficult for grade school kids that may now have $300 netbooks?
But the falling portion of my model that arrested did not remain intact. The bottom was crushed like the top of the stationary portion which makes perfect sense according to Newton’s 3rd Law. Crushing the paper loops requires energy and the onlysource is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So it slows down. Bazant is talking nonsense. So how has he been allowed to talk nonsense for so long?
psik
It’s too bad they didn’t build the towers out of washers and paper, then they wouldn’t have collapsed entirely. If only you’d been there to tell them how to do it…
Next you can put an egg in a peanut butter jar filled with cotton balls, throw it at a wall and when the egg doesn’t break claim that all the car accident deaths are caused by sudden heart attacks.