British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970.

This completely ignores (ignorance) or sidesteps (deceit by omission) the difference between static and dynamic loads.

This guy has already gone to the trouble of explaining it, so I'll quote him:

http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/

I suspect both of you are oversimplifying.

Yes, sadsack, the forces presented by dropping something twelve feet are greater than those presented by that same weight sitting still.

However the upper stories were not air dropped (contrary to the analysis in the Gordon Ross paper cited above, which explicitly states that it ignores "losses of energy due to the residual strength within the failing columns of the failed section".)

Well, to be more precise, the upper stories probably -were- air dropped, but this could only have happened if some rather sudden and, dare I say, explosive expenditure of energy removed more or less all structural support provided by an entire story.

Can we get real here, guys? Can we get past the point of scoring debating points and heaping scorn, to consider what actually happened?

I submit that the Gordon Ross paper is unrealistically simplified, for the purposes of making its analysis tractable, but that it still makes an important point. It's saying that if the upper stories were air dropped say twelve feet onto the lower stories, then the loss of energy spent crushing each level would slow the fall, eventually leaving "insufficieint energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all the energy demands of the collision."

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

That being said, I object to my post being characterized as an ad-hominem attack.

A reasonable objection.

I'm writing off the rest as a "heat of the moment thing" - no harm, no foul

Fair enough. My accusation of 'ad hominem' was in response to your closing line:

College level courses in Mechanics I and II can do wonders to inoculate against trutheritis . . .

You did put a smiley there and it was a mild barb. I overreacted, perhaps because I am getting annoyed with what I sense as an arrogant tone of being lectured to, in posts by others above. Sorry.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The article in question stated that the structural supports were supporting 30 percent of their designed load-bearing capacity. The article then went on to state that because the structure could support the static weight of the top floors, it should therefore be able to support the dynamic loading of the same mass traveling at (per the article I linked) almost 20 mph! :eek::confused:

Which article was this? I'm losing the thread of references here.

I agree that a mass in motion imparts greater force than the same mass at rest. I agree that if one of the articles quoted above denied this, then it has a serious flaw, quite possibly fatal flaw depending on whether that confusion was critical to it's main conclusions.

Though there is a flaw in the particular experiment with pennies, jars and paper you quoted. The surface area of the bottom of the jar is greater than that of the five pennies taped together. The weight of the pennies in the jar was spread over a larger area of the paper than the weight of the five pennies in the taped bundle.

That flaw is not critical to the point you were making however (unless the jar were so large that it rested on the frame supporting the paper.)

[sadsack]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Which article was this? I'm losing the thread of references here.

Article 2 (The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis) in Post #47.

I agree that a mass in motion imparts greater force than the same mass at rest. I agree that if one of the articles quoted above denied this, then it has a serious flaw, quite possibly fatal flaw depending on whether that confusion was critical to it's main conclusions.

Yes, this was the article to which I was referring in my initial post.

Though there is a flaw in the particular experiment with pennies, jars and paper you quoted. The surface area of the bottom of the jar is greater than that of the five pennies taped together. The weight of the pennies in the jar was spread over a larger area of the paper than the weight of the five pennies in the taped bundle.

That flaw is not critical to the point you were making however (unless the jar were so large that it rested on the frame supporting the paper.)

Good catch about the surface areas being different, although we agree that this isn't a critical flaw for the reason you outline.

Reviewing skyson's post, that paper (or at least what is excerpted) claims the top floors did not fall, hence they could not acquired have sufficient kinetic energy/ momentum to overcome the load bearing capacity of support columns.

My point is that the upper floors needed only to acquire sufficient momentum to exert a force exceeding three times their static gravitational load to cause the structure to fail. This threshold is mentioned explicitly in the except:

The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads

Remember that kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. It doesn't take much of an increase in speed to rapidly build kinetic energy. This is the point that is obfuscated by handwaving in the article; e.g., it didn't fall, but even if it did, it was an elastic/distributed collision, etc..

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

sadsack, c1ue, and Ghent12:

When all of you labouring yourselve to explain the "tremendous" energy, static/elastic load of the upper floors, you are missing a central point I have made in all my previous posts: the upper floor sections MUST REMAIN INTACT throughout the whole collapse process. E = M(V)2. While you pointing to the fact the velocity increase will rapidly increase the kinetic energy of the upper floor section, I have to argue, in a purely gravity induced collapse, that the ever shrinking mass of the upper floor section due to the fact that upper floor section itself subjected to destruction caused by the massive lower floor section. In fact, I argue that in the end the upper floor section will be reduced to nothing, hence E = 0 x (v)2 = 0 (when collapse of WTC1 reaches to approximately floor 90, and WTC2 to floor 50. errr...here i am too lazy to check out where the actual impacting points by the planes were) because it is by far smaller than the lower floor section in size.

All of your arguments are essentially the "pile driver theory" proposed by Dr. Greening, Dr. Bazant, and the NIST. And I say the "pile driver" is not there! Please read though all my posts and understand them before you "come into the classroom" again! I don't have the energy repeating myself over and over!!!!!!!!!!

Home work tonight - find the "pile driver" in the following videos:;)

1.http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/st_nbc1.html
2.http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/...rth_tower.html
3.this video

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Article 2 (The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis) in Post #47.

Reviewing skyson's post, that paper (or at least what is excerpted) claims the top floors did not fall, hence they could not acquired have sufficient kinetic energy/ momentum to overcome the load bearing capacity of support columns.

Thank-you, sadsack, for clarifying which paper we're talking about.

I don't see where that paper, as excerpted nor in the paper in its entirety, makes this (quoted just above) claim.

I'd guess that the following snippet from the excerpt in Post #47 is what we're talking about:

The weight ["weight" is a common term for the force exerted by a mass due to gravity] of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure.

This discussion clearly distinguishes (to my reading) between the static weight which has been there all along and which "posed no threat", and the increased momentum that a downward moving (negative vertical "velocity") upper block would momentarily impart.

Further when I read that entire paper, it shows a clear and detailed understanding of mass, velocity, momentum, force, and such.

Tell me again, if you can spare the effort sadsack, what's wrong with that paper? It seems fine to me.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

All of your arguments are essentially the "pile driver theory" proposed by Dr. Greening, Dr. Bazant, and the NIST. And I say the "pile driver" is not there! Please read though all my posts and understand them before you "come into the classroom" again! I don't have the energy repeating myself over and over!!!!!!!!!!

Easy, skyson. You've been my "ally" in this discussion; I would not want you to fall to the same weakness for scorn for which I have taken "the other side" to task .

On your main point, it's ok by me if someone doesn't find the missing "pile driver" problem convincing, but instead finds some other flaw to be so egregious as to force rethinking.

The "Official Story" has so many problems (in my view) that it can be (demolished | exploded | smashed into a fine powder) by many means. It really only takes one or two such invalidations to get someone to start seriously rethinking this event.

[sadsack]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

sadsack, c1ue, and Ghent12:

When all of you labouring yourselve to explain the "tremendous" energy, static/elastic load of the upper floors, you are missing a central point I have made in all my previous posts: the upper floor sections MUST REMAIN INTACT throughout the whole collapse process. E = M(V)2. While you pointing to the fact the velocity increase will rapidly increase the kinetic energy of the upper floor section, I have to argue, in a purely gravity induced collapse, that the ever shrinking mass of the upper floor section due to the fact that upper floor section itself subjected to destruction caused by the massive lower floor section. In fact, I argue that in the end the upper floor section will be reduced to nothing, hence E = 0 x (v)2 = 0 (when collapse of WTC1 reaches to approximately floor 90, and WTC2 to floor 50. errr...here i am too lazy to check out where to actual impacting points by the planes were) because it is by far smaller than the lower floor section in size.

All of your arguments are essentially the "pile driver theory" proposed by Dr. Greening, Dr. Bazant, and the NIST. And I say the "pile driver" is not there! Please read though all my posts and understand them before you "come into the classroom" again! I don't have the energy repeating myself over and over!!!!!!!!!!

Home work tonight - find the "pile driver" in the following videos:;)

1.http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/st_nbc1.html
2.http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/...rth_tower.html
3.this video

Perhaps you want to rephrase the sentence I highlighted? You are saying that the top floors impacted the lower floors with such devastating force that they were "subjected to destruction" - this would naturally be insufficient to weaken the support structure of the lower floors? :confused: I'm a bit confused, since it seems like you're agreeing with me.

The argument to which you refer is analogous to any of Zeno's Paradoxes (from the Wiki):

Several of Zeno's nine surviving paradoxes (preserved in Aristotle's Physics^[1] and Simplicius's commentary thereon) are essentially equivalent to one another; and most of them were regarded, even in ancient times, as very easy to refute.^{[citation needed]} Three of the strongest and most famous—that of Achilles and the tortoise, the Dichotomy argument, and that of an arrow in flight—are presented in detail below.

Zeno's arguments are perhaps the first examples of a method of proof called reductio ad absurdum also known as proof by contradiction. They are also credited as a source of the dialectic method used by Socrates.^[2]

Zeno's paradoxes were a major problem for ancient and medieval philosophers. More modern calculus has solved the mathematical aspects of the paradox, while many philosophers still hesitate to say that other aspects of the paradoxes are completely solved. Variations on the paradoxes (see Thomson's lamp) continue to produce philosophically and mathematically challenging problems.

Like Zeno's paradox, this argument unravels when modern mathematics is applied to solve the problem . . .

BTW - thanks everyone for keeping things PG so far

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Perhaps you want to rephrase the sentence I highlighted? You are saying that the top floors impacted the lower floors with such devastating force that they were "subjected to destruction" - this would naturally be insufficient to weaken the support structure of the lower floors? :confused: I'm a bit confused, since it seems like you're agreeing with me.

The argument to which you refer is analogous to any of Zeno's Paradoxes (from the Wiki):



Like Zeno's paradox, this argument unravels when modern mathematics is applied to solve the problem . . .

BTW - thanks everyone for keeping things PG so far

Yes, sadsack, I am in agreement with you, to a certain point. While the "pile driver theory" proponents focus on the powerful destruction ability of the upper floor sections, they tend to ingore the more powerful destruction ability of the lower floors. They essentialy viewing the upper floors "collide" and "destroy" the lower floors completely. And I say no, impossible.

Please see my detail of reasoning on my post #37.

If you propose the rapidly fall upper floor section, with its tremendous kinectic energy, would cause much damage to the lower floors, then you have to realize the lower floor sections in reserve will cause damage to the upper floor section too. This is the third Newton Physics Law: F = -F. In effect, I say when similar density objects collide, they cause same damage to each other, which means that when the falling upper floor section damage individual floors of lower section in sequence, it is also true that the lower floor section damaging the upper floor section one floor at a time in sequence.

Since the lower floors is much larger than the upper floor sections(roughly, in WTC1: 7:1, for WTC2: 4:1), so it is reasonably to say, the collapse caused by the falling upper floor section will stop at one point, since by the time upper sections fall to floor 76 for WTC1(17 floors of lower section damaged, and falling upper section's 17 floors structure damaged and exhuasting its mass) and to floor 44 of WTC2(33 floors of lower section damaged, and falling upper section's 33 floors structure damaged and exhuasting its mass).

Yes, that is the essence of my arguement. Official "Pile driver theory" ignores the fact that the upper floor sections are subjected to damage by the lower floor too.

That is why I said that they were fundamentally flaw. The "pile drivers"(falling upper section) were not there. They were destoyed in midair. And please see the videos in my previous post for proof.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

that the ever shrinking mass of the upper floor section due to the fact that upper floor section itself subjected to destruction caused by the massive lower floor section

Perhaps you want to rephrase the sentence I highlighted? You are saying that the top floors impacted the lower floors with such devastating force that they were "subjected to destruction" - this would naturally be insufficient to weaken the support structure of the lower floors? :confused:

Well sadsack, I'm not quite sure what your word they refers to (the upper floors or the lower floors) but I think I understand what skysons' saying here.

He's saying that to the extent that the upper floors, by way of colliding with the lower floors, are able to destroy the lower floors, to that same extent (or even more, given that the upper floors are lighter weight construction) the upper floors will also be destroyed.

The "pile driver" (falling upper floors) will grind itself out in it's collisions with the lower floors, destroying both until the cohesive "pile driving" unity of the upper floors is no longer sufficient to destroy yet more lower floors.

From what I recall being told (I did not read the official 9/11 Commission report myself) the official story addresses this problem by concluding that the lower floors weren't destroyed (pulverized into fine dust immediately) but that they were broken lose of their moorings to the center column, thereby adding to the mass of the falling "pile driver." I think some have called this the "pancake" theory.

An objection to this pancake theory which I also recall reading is that this scenario doesn't explain how the center columns came down. The center columns were not horizontal layers which one can imagine pancaking down to a much shorter "stack of pancaked floors" (which we've never seen pictures of ... odd), but rather the center columns were vertical steel beams of quite hefty construction. Such construction doesn't do the pancake any better than this old cow dances the limbo.

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

From what I recall being told (I did not read the official 9/11 Commission report myself) the official story addresses this problem by concluding that the lower floors weren't destroyed (pulverized into fine dust immediately) but that they were broken lose of their moorings to the center column, thereby adding to the mass of the falling "pile driver." I think some have called this the "pancake" theory.

Thanks for chipping in.

The 9/11 Commission Report does not include any analysis about the WTC Collapse. It relies on the NIST Report for that part of investigation. Unfortunately, the NIST Report only deal with this matter up to the point of "initiation of collapse". It then assumes the collapse will be global(complete collapse). In other words, NIST avoid scientific analysis of the total collapse. It is literally 10 seconds short.

I urge everyone to read the NIST Report(more specifically: NIST NCSTAR 1-6). See it and understand it. Ask yourself why they ignore this most controversial aspect of the 9/11 event.

[Ghent12]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

MUST REMAIN INTACT

This is easy to refute. The following example essentially illustrates why:
1) A truck carrying 5 tons of bricks for a construction project crashes into your stationary car at 40 MPH.
2) A truck carrying 5 tons of fine granulated sugar crashes through a brick wall at 60 MPH, slowing it to 40 MPH before impacting your stationary car.
Which truck does more damage?

Even if the floors "destroy" each other, their mass does not vanish or disappear. The principle of the conservation of mass still applies. Certainly some becomes airborne as dust, and that is visible in the video. How many of the more than 50,000 or 100,000 tons of mass became airborne as a result of the initial collision between the upper section and the lower section? I imagine it was just a shade over statistical insignificance, but I do not have the tools to do that analysis. The rest which didn't become airborne, including dust, steel, and everything else, still fell and still imparted its kinetic energy.

[c1ue]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

When all of you labouring yourselve to explain the "tremendous" energy, static/elastic load of the upper floors, you are missing a central point I have made in all my previous posts: the upper floor sections MUST REMAIN INTACT throughout the whole collapse process. E = M(V)2. While you pointing to the fact the velocity increase will rapidly increase the kinetic energy of the upper floor section, I have to argue, in a purely gravity induced collapse, that the ever shrinking mass of the upper floor section due to the fact that upper floor section itself subjected to destruction caused by the massive lower floor section. In fact, I argue that in the end the upper floor section will be reduced to nothing, hence E = 0 x (v)2 = 0 (when collapse of WTC1 reaches to approximately floor 90, and WTC2 to floor 50. errr...here i am too lazy to check out where the actual impacting points by the planes were) because it is by far smaller than the lower floor section in size.

Sorry, as Ghent12 noted, mass = mass. Your ignorance of physics continues.

Unless antimatter nano-thermite was involved, the mass of the upper floors never changed. Mass whether powder or a steel girder is still mass.

Pile Driver or not is also totally irrelevant.

Avalanches are primarily composed of small to tiny chunks of snow and ice - yet they can scour out road beds and topple buildings. And avalanches aren't falling straight down - they roll along a slope losing energy to friction all the while.

You might try to argue that powderized WTC floors have a higher coefficient of friction in air, but even this becomes irrelevant if the powder is clumped together. Only the outside layers experience this friction while the vast majority of the mass falls at maximum gravitational acceleration.

This can be seen experimentally as well: dropping a spray of water vs. a giant droplet. A small amount - say 1 cup - will not see much difference. A large amount - say 1000 gallons - will see a significant difference.

So try again.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Even if the floors "destroy" each other, their mass does not vanish or disappear. .. The rest which didn't become airborne, including dust, steel, and everything else, still fell and still imparted its kinetic energy.

Falling pulverized material still has its mass, correct.

However some of its kinetic energy is lost in the pulverization. The broken up chunks move slower, as a result of colliding with whatever broke them up.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Sorry, as Ghent12 noted, mass = mass. Your ignorance of physics continues.

I'm sure that skyson knows that mass equals mass.

Let's treat each other with respect.

Unless antimatter nano-thermite was involved, ...

I don't find ridicule very persuasive either, sorry.

Pile Driver or not is also totally irrelevant.

I would disagree with that. Some of the affects we're dealing with involve inelastic changes. Many materials, including steel, will bend but not break for a certain range of forces, but buckle or fail catastrophically with larger forces. A unified hard "pile driver" is able to focus forces, perhaps sufficiently to break some critical members or joints that a distributed force of similar total momentum couldn't break. I'd sooner get hit in the torso with a shotgun blast than a rifle shot, fired at close range with similar gun powder loads, if wearing a modest bullet "proof" vest (Mind you I have no direct experience on either end of either choice; someone out there may well know better.)

In any event here, c1ue, we're barking up the wrong tree.

We're not so much having problems understanding physics and mechanics as we are having problems getting full and reliable evidence and determining which detailed model of events (following the laws of physics, of course) accurately applies.

That is, as I can imagine saying when I was a student of mathematics, we're having trouble validating our model.

Dissing people's understanding of theory is an unfortunate distraction from the real difficulties this discussion faces.

===

We have two difficult to swallow "facts" staring us in the face.

1. Getting steel frame buildings to fall like those three buildings did is very difficult to accomplish without pre-planting substantial quantities of demolition explosives. So far as I know, it's never been done in human history except on that fateful day of September 11, 2001. Many, including some reputable building engineers and demolition experts, believe that it's not possible without the explosives.
2. Suggesting that someone working for the U.S. government or associated corporations knowingly pre-planted substantial quantities of demolition explosives is too outrageous to be credible.

One of those two facts must give.