That question has been answered multiple times. Why do your comments about airliner mass and skyscraper mass never mention fire damage?
Evidently an airliner can destroy the WTC because it did. Question answered!
Also, the distribution of steel and concrete is irrelevant to the question, as has been pointed out to you in great detail over and over and over and over and over.
.
ROFL
Yeah, physics and curiosity are irrelevant.
200 tons of airliner hits building at 500 mph and the building moves about 14 inches at the level of impact.
The people in the nation that put men on the Moon don’t have the curiosity to ask about the quantities of steel and concrete on the levels where the plane hit. This site fights ignorance by enforcing stupidity. LOL
This is really intelligent!
Don’t ask questions and you don’t need answers. Just believe moronic drivel.
psik
You have been told to stop trolling. You have refused to actually examine reams of information that actually answered your questions, responding with inaccurate and irerelvant models and claims that information that is readily available has not been tied up in a bow and handed to you.
You are done.
This is a Warning that if you persist in ignoring what has been posted, responding only with insults for the sole purpose of stringing out this thread, your posting privileges are in jeopardy.
[ /Moderating ]
.
How can you compute how much damage fire can do to steel in less than 2 hours is you don’t know the quantity of steel? Considering how much steel must have been manufactured in the last 100 years what is required the heat steel to the point of weakening should be pretty well known.
So the failure to solve this simple engineering problem in almost eight years is extremely ludicrous. Of course there is the minor detail of that hotel in China that burned all night and did not collapse.
We don’t need no SCIENCE education. 
Americans are a joke!
psik
Scroll down just a bit to the first post by thecoalman. (He’d fit in just great at the SDMB, at least as someone trying to dispel ignorance)
His main point was, that the two building are not the same. He makes very scientifically sound points.
psikeyhackr, your continued trolling after being told to stop has resulted in a temporary suspension of your posting privileges.
The staff will review your record and consider whether to re-instate them.
[ /Moderating ]
I was just about to point out that the first reference to the word ‘conspiracy’ being perhaps a bit inaccurate occurs in post #10.
I’d just like to thank everyone at the SDMB for keeping psikeyhackr entertained here for the last few weeks.
Folks at the JREF forum needed a break.
I suppose we’ll see him back there tomorrow.
Tons of steel and concrete! Tons of steel and concrete!
From your link the claim was Jet Fuel could not bring down the towers. That is fact, (And was never a NIST claim) but your link goes on to state this…
"Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center."
That is false, the jet fuel did not bring down the towers, it’s does not burn hot enough and would have been spent in the first 15 minutes, so why did the fires burn longer, the jet fuel acted like lighter fluid, setting poly products on fire which burn much hotter. Poly products such as carpet, desks, office dividers, etc.
THEORY
http://www.debunking911.com/sagt.jpg
FACT
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg
Severe bowing.
http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg
Also see…
“According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it’s not going to take long before the north tower comes down.‘’ This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower’s southern face, Shyam Sunder said.”
Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don’t go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don’t slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.
-
About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.
-
Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou’s analysis did not depend on that).
-
Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story buckling. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also decreased buckling strength.
-
The combination of six effects
a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,
b ) lowering of yield limit and creep,
c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses,
d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors,
e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and
f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. (Bazant, Verdure, 2006)
Index of /people/bazant/PDFs/Papers
/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf
**
SUPPORT THE GREEN MOVEMENT IN IRAN**
Any questions? (And what concrete, a small stairwell?)
SUPPORT THE GREEN MOVEMENT IN IRAN!
Anyone know why I get this alert when I try to post the above…
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 2 characters
vB does not consider a quote box, in and of itself, to be a deliberate post. It insists that you make the effort to hit a couple of keys, indicating your choice to post a quote is not an accident.
Thanks, I put the quotes brackets around a new post by accident as the last board I was on was was mostly manual.
I think I should change my name to Newbie.
SUPPORT THE IRANIAN GREEN MOVEMENT!
Physicists
ROFL
Anybody that brings up Bazant after all of these years must not understand what he wrote. They must expect people to be impressed by fancy but misapplied mathematics though.
How can the top falling block of the north tower impact and crush the lower stationary portion without being damaged itself? If a Volkswagen Beatle hits a stationary Hummer at 60 mph is the Hummer going to get crushed while the Beatle remains intact? Both cars would suffer damage. So how do 14 stories of the north tower remain intact while crushing 95 stories that get stronger all of the way down but then disintegrate when the reach to bottom.
Mathematics ain’t physics. You must understnad the physics to figure out what mathematics to apply. But even then you must have CORRECT DATA about the structure in question to plug into the equations.
psik
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr]
You must understnad the physics to figure out what mathematics to apply.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, you don’t seem to grasp either. On the other hand, you sure laugh a lot, so at least you are happy in your ignorance…
-XT
Let me guess - if someone points out that the quantity of steel in either of the WTC main towers is quite well-established, your next point of contention is that we don’t know (even after eight years!) exactly how many flammable chairs, carpets, cubicle dividers etc. there were.
The problem is indeed solved to any reasonable person’s satisfcation.
Some of them indeed are, from my outsider’s perspective.
We’re getting a better idea of psikeyhackr’s concerns. Answers about a building collapse are to be rejected if they are given too quickly (48 hours is too quick), but are ridiculously late if too much time goes by. Correctness (which you would think would be a relevant criterion) is really of no import whatsever. The concept that approximate data can be used to develop accurate conclusions is also a red herring, apparently, and the math used in analysis must be quite simple, otherwise, it’s obviously being used for obfustication
Misapplied how, oddly his paper passed peer review.
Could you please show me any evidence that the top thirty story chunk of the North Tower made it to the ground intact, then disintegrated? Are we now in Judy Wood space based beam weapons Land?
Not exactly, some data is irrelevant, If I take a cardboard egg carton and rest a cinder block on it, it will hold up the block, now let’s weaken the cardboard egg carton by placing it in a pan of water for a week with the cinder block resting on the carton. Does one need to know the density and mass of the cinderblock to understand the egg carton is bound to fail?
Nope-O-Ronni, One only needs to know there was sufficient water to weaken the supporting carton.
Support the Iranian Green Movement