How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

The problem isn't just in the reduction of scale. It a problem of scale in general.

For example, I challenge you to make a flying model of a bee the size of a 747. If you can't, that should be considered proof that bees can't fly.

 

Did you intend to communicate something of importance with this word salad?

 

You not a vegetarian?

I would like for someone to explain to me how kerosene and office fires, rendered iron and steel into a completely melted mass. I have yet to find anyone that could do that. And unless it can be explained by the official story, then there is a stinking dead rat here. So go ahead, convince me, if you can use scientific facts to do it. That is my greatest problem I have with the official story, that by the way, the head of that commission said was an exercise in ass covering, and not at all serious. That sir is a fact. And he was there, the head of that deal, and you were not.

Have you seen all of these ex CIA men, FBI men, military officers, who do not believe what you believe? Are you more experienced than them, sir? I trust in those men over some commission that we already know for a fact to be one huge farce.

Is that Leonardo you use as a pic for yourself? If not, you look like him.

 

Whatever makes you think that "iron and steel" were rendered into a completely melted mass by kerosene and office fires? That's like asking to prove that the building was melted using a hurricane powered, space based directed energy weapon. Complete truther lunacy.

You should do two things. First educate yourself on the subject of eutectic alloys.

Second, you should wonder to yourself how a 58 meter high pile of smoldering rubble could be described as an office fire.

 

Aluminium, the buildings were clad in it.

You are trying to make fires predictable. The steel didn't melt either did it? Do you see what's wrong with the analogy?

True, but it burns quickly and affected metals cool rapidly. The convection effect you mention could also sustain molten aluminium.

See above.

Tell me what it means to you.

Because there was no evidence to suggest a need for such a search and the cleanup crews would have found evidence of a CD.

First, its very existence needs to be ascertained. What does the existence of molten metal indicate to you?

It's on the ISF forum for all to see.

 

Impurities can make Aluminium glow red/orange, and in such fires, impurities in flowing material are common.

No, metal cools instantly after a thermitic reaction, and the convection certainly couldn't maintain 'rivers of molten steel for weeks' as truthers often cite.

No, it is faked and ironically, a truther discovered this.

Many are not qualified architects and engineers. Please try to follow the conversation.

What are yours?

 

Ignoring what you want again to play ego games.

I have never seen a specification of the mass of the model. Since they never expected the real bridge to collapse did they concern themselves with the strength of the cable connections to the road bed on the model relative to the mass and strength of the real bridge. That would not affect the realism of the oscillation. How overstressed were the real cables during the jerks resulting from the oscillations?

The solution would have been to stop the oscillations from occurring rather than make something strong enough to resist them getting out of control. How could they ever be certain of the upper limit of the wind and weakening of connections over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Bridge

psik

 

Impurities? So what? Nothing to discuss here.

you are ignoring hydrogen again

call em what you want, no 'real' evidence of fakery.

your responses broadcast your qualifications.

 

I think this theory is flawed, as the US government would not attempt something as risky as demolishing the Twin Towers. If it ever was known to the public, they would be considered as evil as Osama Bin Laden for sure. In this case, I believe that the US government did not demolish the twin towers, because for them, the risk outweighs the reward by far.

 

What does my ego have to do with the reason the cable failed in the real world, but not in testing on a scale model? Nothing. It just an excuse for you to avoid answering a question that destroys your premise.

The answer is in this statement, and then you deny your premise right in the same statement. Did you just claim that the distribution of mass does not affect the oscillation? Don't you have a youtube about that? Odd.

Let's, just for giggles, say that they were super concerned that the bridge would collapse, and they created a super accurate 1:200 scale model of the bridge. Right down to the thickness of the asphalt surfacing, the bolts and rivets that held everything together, even the wiring for the little street lights was exactly 1:200 scale.

What would be the scale of the mass of the bridge? What would be the scale of the strength?

 

Ever heard of the square cube law? Galileo figured it out.

http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

I never said that physical models were perfect. How long was the span of the real bridge? Was the wind speed always the same all of the way across the bridge? They would probably have had a hard time testing that on the real bridge with 1940 technology. The wind speed created for the model was probably more uniform.

The only reason I brought it up was for the oscillation, not for the breakage. The issue is that the smaller things are the stronger they are relative to their mass and therefore more difficult to break. So testing for breakage would probably mean using different materials to maintain the same strength to mass ratios as the real object.

That is why I deliberately used a material as weak as possible, paper, in my model. But I tested it to be strong enough to support the static load. But it still arrested the falling dynamic load which was the point to be determined by the experiment.

You are just jumping around looking for things to complain about.

So in almost FOURTEEN YEARS where is the model that can completely collapse? Shouldn't it be easy? Where is the computer model that supplies complete data?

psik

 

it was the force of the weight of the collapsing floors..i already gave them the formula to use to see how much weight is involved but they said it was too hard to do...we use these formulas everyday at work...it takes less than fie minutes to figure out the answer...guess that's why there are few liberals in this field...

 

He did, but you haven't yet.

This is not about the perfection of a model. This is about the behavior if a model. You say it's possible to build a small scale model that behaves the same as a full scale model. This, of course, is not possible for the reasons defined by square cube law. You can have a model that has a scale shape, but you cannot have a model that has a scale mass, or a scale strength. This is not about selecting the correct material. This is about a limitation in 3 dimensional space. On top of that, you've added the extra complications of expecting a scale gravity. And as you should know, acceleration is a much bigger factor than mass.

You tell me. You said the model duplicated the oscillation of the bridge. Did it duplicate the oscillation of the bridge, or not?

You have a Youtube video that attempts to show the importance of mass distribution in oscillation. Is mass not as important as this video claims, or is it important for the mass distribution of the bridge model to be just as correct as the mass distribution of the tower model?

You also deliberately use a dowel down the center of your model, because, as you claimed, it could not stand on its own without one. Not only do you not understand the structural significance of the dowel, my guess is, that if you remove the dowel fast enough the tower collapses pretty much exactly like the actual towers collapsed.

So the bottom line of my problem with your claim is:

Why, according to you, cannot a good physicist gather important information about a real collapse from a tower model that doesn't collapse, while at the same time, according to you, they can gather important information about a real collapse from a bridge model that doesn't collapse? Why doesn't the fact that the bridge model remained standing disprove the theory in your mind that the actual bridge collapsed under very similar conditions?

That seems like quite the double standard, doesn't it?

 

You are really good at playing dumb. Must be natural talent.

I already provided a link to a video so anyone could judge for themselves. Including YOU!

So why are you asking me now? If you can't judge for yourself then say so.

psik

 

Exactly, the molten metal point is silly.

Nope. Tell me, if the convection effect maintained the metals in the molten state, how do you know the source for that state was thermite? Quite simply, you don't, therefore the argument for molten metal is specious. But I doubt you'd be able to grasp that.

In that case, there is no 'real' evidence for authenticity.

As do yours..welcome to high school. Is it your first year?

 

I'm not playing dumb. I'm being considerate of my audience.

If there's one thing I've learned from truthers, it's that people with a simple understanding of a process require a simple step by step hand holding through a discussion.

And wait, are you now telling me you've based your argument that the bridge model duplicated the oscillation of the bridge using only a visual assessment of an old video? And because of this you claim it's possible to model the building collapse if only we had a precise distribution of mass? What nonsense.

Step by step and in simple terms I've destroyed your claim that the model had the potential to duplicate the oscillation of the bridge using your own reasoning. To that you've had no answer. So just who is it that's attempting to play dumb here in reality?

 

Are you saying that the visual recordings of the model do not match the behavior of the real bridge? If so why don't you do it in an unequivocal manner?

So you are back to putting words in people's mouths? Did I say that was the only thing we needed? Are you telling us that a model without that data could be conclusive?

The bridge and the model were built before I was born. The recordings are the evidence for what actually happened. My reasoning about it is irrelevant. It is called empiricism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

You haven't destroyed anything. Just shown that you can keep tossing out specious BS. Endless pseudo-intellectual bullsh!t.

Are you saying the behavior of the model does not match that of the bridge? Why don't you give your "audience" and answer that? They have eyes, they can see for themselves. Maybe you don't have an audience.

psik

 

Why are you avoiding the question? Is mass important or not? If I show you a video of a model tower that collapses in a way that looks similar to the full scale tower, will that satisfy you? I doubt it.

You keep avoiding this other question as well; if the model of the bridge did not collapse, why was this evidence that the full scale bridge would collapse if subjected to the same motion?

Why would Farquharson claim the real bridge would collapse when the model would not? You babbled a little about mass, and this either contradicts your claims that mass is important, or contradicts your claims that the oscillation was duplicated. So which is it? Is mass important, or did the model not duplicate the behavior of the real bridge?

 

Provide a link to where I said anything about there being evidence for predicting that the bridge would collapse.

YOU are the one who made that claim.

psik

 

So you demand a model of a building that predicts the collapse of a building, and your example is a model of a bridge that does not predict the collapse of a bridge? Go figure.

No, Professor Farquharson made that claim. It's right in the quote.

How did he know that the real bridge would collapse if the model did not collapse?

 

I already pointed out the strength to weight ratio of the square cube law.

The small model could easily be far stronger than the bridge in relation to its weight.

psik

 

Why didn't you just explain how office fires, and kerosene could render iron and steel to puddles of orange melted metal? That is all I asked for. Because those two combustibles, do not burn hot enough to melt this kind of metal. And quite a bit of globs of melted metal can be seen in the videos taken after the attack. This has been my main sticking point, but if you will not explain it to me, how those fires could reach temps high enough to liquefy metal, I will just recognize a dodge. If you cannot explain it, using what these fires burn at, then you will join in with the others who ?

Surely you would not be so cavalier as to deny what there is plenty of evidence of?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQRRZRKi1Mk

If science cannot explain how kerosene and office fires can melt steel, or the pieces of melted steel found that cooled off, then there is an incoherence here. And an incoherence actually is important.

 

There was no 'melted steel' found...try again.

 

But you said repeatedly that the model replicated the oscillation of the bridge, and that watching a video proves that the model replicated the oscillation. How could the model have replicated the oscillation if the mass and strength were not correct?

You demand that people do "fiziks," and yet when presented with an actual physics problem you tell me I'm supposed to watch a video and guess.

And you have the gall to say that the experts that worked on the 9/11 problem have no idea what they are doing?