.
There were more than 2500 exterior wall panels on each tower. The NIST admits there were 12 types. The heaviest was 22 tons and we only know that because it was in an engineering magazine from 1970.
So you try finding the quantities for each type and the weights for the other 11.
psik
psikeyhackr, could you make the SLIGHTEST effort to look-the-fuck-up the measurements you demand stop wasting our time with your worthless hijacks? The information is available to ANYBODY with a calculator, which actually puts you AHEAD of the original engineers. I’m not doing your fucking legwork. YOU have a claim and YOU have to support it.
I can’t believe that people still believe that the Air Force or some other US Govt. Agency did not shoot down the last plane in the field in PA (flight 93)
There is no way that fighter planes wouldn’t have been scrambled from a base near DC after the first two planes hit. The last plane in the air was the one that turned around near Cleveland and was flying back to DC when it went down.
I know it’s a nice story to think that the passengers sacrificed themselves and tried to take over the plane. They may have even tried it. However, to think that the fourth plane was not able to be intercepted in the time period we are talking about is just not realistic.
I agree with the decision, by the way, of taking it down. It hit a field in PA, and if I remember correctly, no ground deaths occurred. Covering the story up makes sense on a number of levels, but I believe it was shot down.
To read an interesting take on the events as reported right after the crash from eye-witnesses in the local area papers, see this site to get started.
I’m not an expert (I don’t even play one on TV, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but I would think that the impact crater (for want of a better word) of an intact plane hitting a field would be significantly different from the impact craters of pieces of an airplane that was shot out of the sky.
You quoted pedescribe, and yet didn’t actually respond to anything he wrote. Which doesn’t actually surprise me.
Would you care to describe what, exactly, could do with information on the exact weight distribution for every floor of the World Trade Center? How would the behavior of a system containing the exact weight distribution differ from one with an over- or under-estimated weight distribution? Why is this relevant to the collapse of the World Trade Center?
Kudos to you for actually doing a physical experiment, but your methodology is too fundamentally flawed to draw any conclusions about the World Trade Center, and redistributing mass isn’t going to correct it.
I’m no expert either, but if a plane of that size is knocked down by a missle, it doesn’t necessarily have to be blown to bits in the air. I assume it could have remained relatively intact, but lost its lift capabilities to maintain aloft. The impact crater does seem to indicate a mostly intact plane hitting the ground.
Except it wasn’t. There were no planes close enough, and there’s no evidence of a shoot down. Unfortunately, like many aspects of 9/11, people are willing to believe things that have been demonstrated to be not true. The plane wasn’t shot down.
Yeah, we all pretty much agree that a shoot-down would have been justified in that situation, but it’s just that all the evidence points the other way. And there’s no evidence indicating a shoot-down, only your suppositions that there should have been enough time.
Evidence that a shoot-down didn’t happen, includes eyewitness accounts, the flight recorder data which showed all systems functioning normally up to the point of impact, and the distribution of debris at the crash site. I’m not aware of any evidence that’s inconsistent with this scenario.
He’d show that the deflection after impact should have been 12.5 inches instead of the 12 inches reported in the “official story,” which would demonstrate that there was a conspiracy to, uh, something.
-looming economic collapse (brought on by the banks/corporations)
-Saddam rumored to be considering swapping to the Euro
-billions of bullion under the WTC
-massive post-war ‘reconstruction’ contract(s) potential
-bases positioned strategically in the Middle-East another carrot
-terrorist plan already coincidentally(?) in the works
-intelligence agencies turn a blind eye
-NORAD gets lost in Bermuda Triangle…
-Booyah!
-W. reads Mary Had A Little Lamb and is awestruck by its literary complexity
-cock and bull ‘WMD’ drivel to scare the masses
-‘Axis of Evil’ Third Reich fear-mongering
-Georgey porgey can finally make daddy proud…
Do the math sheeple! 
(PS: Throw MOSSAD in the blender too if you like!)
[QUOTE=Stink Fish Pot]
I can’t believe that people still believe that the Air Force or some other US Govt. Agency did not shoot down the last plane in the field in PA (flight 93)
[/QUOTE]
As with most of this discussion, it’s not really about belief…it’s about evidence. There is no evidence that flight 93 was shot down…while there is some evidence that the passengers tried to take control of the plane and the terrorists decided to simply crash the thing rather than let them regain control.
That’s true…there is no way they could have gotten armed (and that’s the key) fighters into the air to intercept the first two planes. And they certainly COULD have gotten an armed fighter into the air to intercept flight 93. The problem is, I don’t believe there is any evidence that they did. Or rather, there is evidence that by this point they had armed fighters in the air, they just hadn’t sent one after flight 93 by the time it crashed. Why? Well, the short answer is that there were a LOT of false positives at that point…a lot of planes that the FAA was unsure had or hadn’t been hijacked, was or was not part of the attack. People looking back in hindsight see the situation with perfect 20/20 vision…but the folks going through it were getting fragmentary information that was highly compartmentalized, without the benefit of the time to compare notes.
But what do you base your belief on? What evidence do you present? The FAA recovered the wreckage…is it indicated in any of their reports that the air craft was hit by a missile or gun fire? Such things DO leave evidence, even in a plane crash.
Sure…a missile probably wouldn’t completely shred the air craft. But an air to air missile hitting a passenger plane is going to leave some evidence…as would the use of the guns. Do you have any cites for such evidence? The blast effect of an engine taking a missile during flight? Indications of bullet holes in the plane body? Pieces of the missile’s rocket motor in the wreckage?
-XT
The airliner that hit the south tower had a reasonably well known mass and velocity. Therefore the momentum and kinetic energy can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. But when the plane hit the tower two things happened simultaneously:
the plane began punching a hole into the building doing structural damage
the plane began pushing the building off center which resulted in 4 minutes of damped oscillation
Now how do you figure out how much kinetic energy did which?
The NIST says the tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor. How can you compute how much energy was involved in that movement if you don’t know the mass on that level? So the percentage of the kinetic energy that did structural damage cannot be computed without knowing how much kinetic energy shook the building and that cannot be computed without distribution of mass.
There are at least 3 different reasons for needing that info and it had to be determined to design the buildings in the first place. So why don’t we have it? Someone hear already asked me about the potential energy in one of my models. Some people want to claim that provided the energy to pulverize concrete. Since that is mass times height then how mass was distributed in the tower is relevant to potential energy.
I already provided a link showing how mass distribution affected the collapse time in a 64 foot drop. Did someone show the math was wrong?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg251656#msg251656
psik
Oscillatory motion requires both mass and stiffness. If you’re interested in modelling the oscillation of the tower, I’m surprised you’re not also asking for the stiffness. In any case, you’ve neglecte to address the second part of my question, so I’ll ask it again: How would the behavior of a system containing the exact weight distribution differ from one with an over- or under-estimated weight distribution? Or, more to the point, why haven’t you examined the bounding cases?
More specifically, suppose you knew exactly “the percentage of the kinetic energy that did structural damage.” Then what? What would this number demonstrate?
You’ve determined that the World trade Center should have collapsed at a speed less than that of free-fall. Which it did. Again, what does this demonstrate?
I really do think it’s great that you’re actually doing calculations and performing experiments, but you don’t seem to have a clear idea what the end goal of your project is, nor how well (or poorly) the calculations represent real life.
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
I already provided a link showing how mass distribution affected the collapse time in a 64 foot drop. Did someone show the math was wrong?
[/QUOTE]
The guys in the other thread did a good job of explaining why what you attempted didn’t scale correctly. Did you think you’d get a different answer here?? It was pretty clear, reading through the thread you linked too (on another message board), that you weren’t getting what they were trying to explain to you. It’s fairly clear you aren’t getting any more traction here either. You should really take your psudo-science and quasi-math to one of the CT 9/11 boards, where you are bound to get what you are looking for.
-XT
I’m not even too sure what he’s trying to prove here as he gives no reason as to why this is important. The only thing I can figure is that his chain of logic is as follows:
(collecting myself) Okay, I can see how, undamped and at the atomic level, a strike like this could cause the building to oscillate for several minutes, but the MEASURABLE seismic record shows it was damped within seconds. BIG FUCKING BUILDING. Big, as aircraft go, but still SMALL BY COMPARISON AIRPLANE.
With nothing else entering into the equation and after substantial repairs, the WTC would still be standing. EXCEPT FOR THE FIRES. (Why do I bother?) The fires weakened the structure and, when one part collapsed, the rest collapsed with it.
I like to create Thought Experiments, but they require a prereq you haven’t provided, so I will try to put it at your level: The Three Stooges are sleeping in a three-level bunkbed. Moe and Larry are sound asleep on the bottom two bunks. Curley jumps into the topmost bunk and all three bunks collapse onto the floor. You can watch a collapse like the one on 9/11 on TV or on YouTube.
I’m currently reading a book called “Gideon’s Spies - The Secret History of The Mossad” by Gordon Thomas, and at the bottom of page 112, in a section detailing the Mossad assassination of Abu Jihad, it says,and I quote, “Next, Sword and another member of the hit team laid an explosive charge at the base of the villa’s heavy iron front door. A new type of “silent” plastic explosive, it made little sound as it blew the doors clean off their hinges.”
Bearing in mind that was in 1988 and who knows what improvements might have been made in the following 13 years, does anyone want to comment on this little fact?
Sure. Even if it was actually silent, it would still have to discharge enough energy to remove the door. Discharging enough energy to sever enough columns to actually cause a building to fall would create shock waves that would be visible–and no such shock waves are visible in any of the videos, few of which provide sound, anyway.
And, of course, it still requires all the same problems that have been raised by the silly demolition theories that are already out there:
Making an explosion, (relatively) quiet does not magically make it something that renders every other piece of contrary evidence go away.
Silent explosives, huh? And if not that, they could have used their Jew black magic.
Oh don’t be silly. How can we know that will happen without knowing the fiber content and the masses of the mattresses?
Only idiots would trust the word of the mattress “experts” anyway.