The final sentence is not supported by the remainder of the paragraph.
Both of these replies are non sequiturs. The only notable part is when you insulted a guy who knows about 10,000 times more about this than you do, and that figure might be too generous towards you.
You will notice that that tray did not contain any information about the beams connecting the columns in the core. That is one of the curious things about this 9/11 business. How some things never get mentioned? And then the Truth Embellishment Movement bombards us with irrelevant bullshit, Pearl Harbor, Project Northwoods, Live terrorists in Arabia.
You can see the beams in the section about the core in the Purdue video.
The core used normal skyscraper construction only even more densely. The core did not need the floors or perimeter to stand. I have e-mailed Prof. Sozen at Purdue about the steel and concrete distribution but no response.
But for the portion of the building above the impact point on the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds (according to Dr. Sunder of the NIST) the upper portion would still have to accelerate the mass below in addition to breaking the supports. Therefore we need to know the distribution of mass for the entire building. Including that ot the beams in the core.
The NIST hasn’t told us the quantities and weights of the 12 types of exterior wall panels. We only know the weight of the heaviest, 22 tons, because it is mentioned in an engineering article from 1970.
psik
You can call them non-sequitors all you want but THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS he said the buildings came down in 9 and 11 seconds. Both of which are less than 18 seconds the last time I checked.
It is truly hilarious that he said that 70% air is so important if he knows so much. Somebody on JREF says he is wrong about the 70%, not that I care about it more than to laugh.
So you worship AUTHORITY that tells you what you prefer to believe. I don’t.
I just concentrate on the physics for myself. The mass falling from the top must accelerate the mass below for most of it to come down in so short a time therefore it is necessary to know the distribution of mass to analyze the event. So why don’t we have it after SEVEN YEARS? Soon to be EIGHT.
psik
Thank you, Gig0Buster.
I suppose there could still be a conspiracy in there, but now it looks more likely that the following 8 years of war are just a tragedy.
You said before that the amount of concrete and steel was unknown. And yet it was, I would have to say you are not making a proper effort in getting information.
I will have to say that many things are not mentioned on regular outlets because they are very technical in nature (Usually the reports you complain about are directed at congress critters) however, it is really silly to assume something nefarious, as it is clear when you told us that something was unknown when it wasn’t.
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive]
Cite!
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: You didn’t actually read what I wrote, did you?
Why break the trend you have followed throughout this thread of NOT looking at them? Why change at this late date?
I’ve provided you with at least one already…why do I need to do this again? You didn’t accept it last time, how will this time be different?
I provided this as well…and you ignored it. Again, what will be different this time? You don’t seem to want to accept any of this stuff despite being provided with cites.
Omar al-Faruq. Do I win a prize? Here, I’ll name two and double my prizes: Hamza Rabia. If you like I can name several more if this will prove something to you…
-XT
THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!!!
I did not say the amount of steel was unknown. The NCSTAR1 report specifies in THREE PLACES that the towers had a total of 200,000 tons of steel. Other sources agree with that.
I said the report does not specify a total for the CONCRETE. Different sources give different amounts for the concrete.
A common number is 425,000 cubic yards for both buildings. But that would mean 300,000 tons just for the concrete in one building.
I said the NIST does not tell us the quantity and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels therefore we don’t know how the weight was distributed over the surface of the buildings.
One is being installed in Fig 4 here:
More than 2500 were on each building so if we don’t know the number and weights of the panels we cannot figure out the weight of steel on each level. We also do not have info on the beams in the core, just the columns.
psik
Not to accuse you of being pedantic or anything, but…what point are you trying to make? What difference does it make if the precise amount of concrete is known or if only an estimate is known?? How does it change the fact that once one floor collapses due to it’s structural steel being deformed it would cause a cascading effect? For that matter, how does it prove whatever crazy theory you are trying to push in this thread?
-XT
Meh, Scientific American had no trouble getting the information for their calculations (It took them one Month, not to get them, but to file the report with the information they got). You are only avoiding getting (or dealing with) the proper information for other reasons.
Where do you get this figure, and do you not consider it might include the base of the buildings, the ‘plaza’ and much more? Why do you assume it must all be in the towers?
There are lots of sites with the 425,000 cubic yards for the concrete and 200,000 tons for the steel. The NIST agrees on the steel but are than silent on the concrete. What is the sense in that? What is so difficult about the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level? They had 3 years and produced 10,000 pages. Isn’t that enough paper for 232 numbers.
psik
psikeyhackr, the point is that, REGARDLESS THE TOTAL MASS, there was PLENTY above the floor that first collapsed that THE ENTIRE TOWER’S COLLAPSE WAS INEVITABLE. Mass hit mass, collapsing it, and so on, and so on. Your claims have no basis in physics nor in engineering. We dismiss your claims, shouted as they may be, as bullshit because of that.
.
Sorry, but the physics IS NOT THAT SIMPLE.
A skyscraper must get stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down. Levels 81 to 95 had to weigh more than 96 to 110. The same applies to every 15 level all of the way down the building.
So assuming the top 10% of the north tower could fall then the bottom of the falling portion would contact the top of the stationary portion and they would begin to crush each other. This would also begin the downward acceleration of the mass of the top of the stationary portion. But the energy required for that crushing and acceleration can only come from the kinetic energy of the falling top portion. Therefore it would have to SLOW DOWN. So how do 14 falling levels destroy 90+ intact levels while decelerating and do it in less than 18 seconds? Even if we arbitrarily give the 14 falling stories a 3-to-1 advantage and say they would destroy 42 levels of the stub, that would still leave more than 50 stories of the north tower standing.
So that is the point of this video:
In the real world you cannot separate the strength of steel from the mass of steel. In my demonstration the strength is only in the toothpicks and the washers only contribute mass. So why is it that simply adding mass breaks a lot fewer toothpicks? So how can we expect to analyze what happened to the WTC towers without knowing the mass of steel and concrete on every level?
I have searched the NCSTAR1 report for “mass distribution”. “weight distribution”, distribution of mass" and “distribution of weight” but I only got two hits. One is in a report about the effect of shock on suspended ceilings but it said the distribution of weight of the tower was needed to analyze the impact. The other mention was about the analysis of the effect of wind on the building done during the design phase.
But there are at least four different reasons for wanting to know the distribution of mass and especially steel and concrete. It cannot be said that a competent analysis has been done until that information is included.
psik
Or too much of the Lone Gunman. 
Has anyone mentioned that such a a quote is the FALSE heart of non-Truther claims?
When the top 10% hits a floor it is REALLY a top 10% + 90% hitting it. The floor was stressed to accept, at most, 1(one floor)x1%(one of a 100+ floors) hitting it. Okay, the math says that we are talking about a 1:1 ratio. However, several films show that the actual mass was many times 1x. Tosses your claims out the window, and we need to watch the collapse to see what happened. Yeah, maybe there were claims that upper floors collapsed first, but in the couple seconds on film (and there is a SHITLOAD of those seconds–pull out your stopwatch and enjoy. :rolleyes:)
My professional life has, I’ve admitted, left me no better than a fisherman, CA1890, but this thread reassures me of my abilities.
You keep saying this despite acknowledging that you have no educational background or work experience to base any such judgement on. For example:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11240902&postcount=563
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11241177&postcount=568
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11241684&postcount=578
It doesn’t make sense to you but that’s different.
psikeyhackr you make similar claims so the same question to you: What educational or work experience do you have in any fields related to the claims that you are making? Structural engineering, architecture, materials science, forensic engineering, etc?
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
A skyscraper must get stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down. Levels 81 to 95 had to weigh more than 96 to 110. The same applies to every 15 level all of the way down the building.
[/QUOTE]
This is wrong. The lowest level has to be strong enough to hold up the entire structure but that doesn’t mean that the highest level can’t be built just as strong. It may in fact be cheaper to build a structure with uniform strength on all levels - as a gross oversimplification you figure out which floor has to be “the strongest”, design that one and make all floors with lower loadings identical (it can save a ton of design & analysis work and simplify the actual construction). Heck, you could even build the upper floors stronger than the lower ones if you wanted to.
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
In the real world you cannot separate the strength of steel from the mass of steel.
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean you can’t separate how strong a hunk of steel is from how much it weighs? If so this is also completely wrong. Structural steel doesn’t have “a strength” unless you’re thinking of the gross physical characteristics. The actual load capacity of, say, a steel column depends on a number of factors including how & where it is loaded, the exact geometry of the column and so on. It’d be really basic engineering to design two steel columns where the lighter one can carry a considerably greater load than the heavier one.
Try concentrating on the engineering; physics only works for spherical buildings in a vaccuum.
In other words, you’re letting Physics 101 blind you to Engineering 452.
Sure I did. I found your points unsatisfactory, but that’s ok.
If you posted the same information and I missed it, then I’m sorry. I’ve read everything posted to this thread so far, and it seemed to me the only thing you had to back up the claim that the Taliban could turn over Bin Laden was a repeated assertion of that. You could repeatedly assert that the Earth is 6000 years old too, but repeating it doesn’t increase its truth value, except maybe to the credulous. You’re good with the case against the demolition theory, but that’s not my question.
And frankly, I still don’t think I’ve seen the formal request and especially the formal response from the Taliban. I mean the post-911 versions, not the UN demand from a few years earlier. I’d still like to see those, but after Gio0buster’s link the question doesn’t have the same gravity it had before. Maybe he didn’t give the formal document from the government channels, but still the information he provides is convincing that the Taliban actually could have laid hands on Bin Laden.
That was really a sticking point for me. For any assertion that lacks evidence, I take the default belief to be that it is not true. Reasonable, no? In a case where a tragic war is predicated on such an assertion, it gets under my skin in a big way if I can’t find evidence to support it.
Or, in the framework of categorical debunking: The proposition that the Taliban could turn over Bin Laden is clearly mutually exclusive with the proposition that the Taliban could not turn over Bin Laden. Convincing evidence puts the train on a whole different track, doesn’t it?
Well ok, one point for you. If you have more, and maybe some links, I’d still find the information interesting.
It is too bad you couldn’t drop the insults and simply be this informative from the start, as then this thread might have died pages ago. But had you done that, I wouldn’t have had the chance to school you (et al) on the argumentum ad baculum. So, one point for me too! 