Post-9/11 World

[umbrarchist]

Greetings,

 

I was recently banned from the StraightDope message board. I got a good laugh out of it. But we are approaching the 23rd anniversary of a world changing event. It was not a Physics Changing event.

 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson sent out a public letter on 9/12/2001 admitting that he lived 4 blocks from Ground Zero and had to leave his home because of the dust. However I am not aware of his discussing the Physics of the Destruction of the Towers since then. Living in New York he should see skyscrapers quite often and being an astrophysicist he should understand some fundamental things about them.

 

How does the steel have to be distributed down a 1430 foot structure (including the 70 ft in the 6 basement levels) support it's weight against gravity and withstand the wind? The Eiffel Tower is 130 years old. Although it scraped the sky for 40 years before the Empire State Building it is not a skyscraper, but its nakedness displays the distribution of support and, no doubt, weight like no building could. However the 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the ET does not have to support twice it's own weight in concrete.

 

Did level 105 of the North Tower of the WTC contain the same amount of steel as the 5th level which had to support the weight of 21 times as many stories? When and where have "experts" discussed the significance of accurate data on the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers in relation to analyzing their destruction?

 

What does this have to do with Black people?

 

Is there Black Physics?

Is there White Physics?

If there is Physics related to what I call the Twin Towers Affair shouldn't most "educated" and "Intelligent" people be able to understand it, especially in the nation that put men on the Moon.

 

I got called a Troll and Conspiracy Theorist in 3 days on StraightDope. What is going to happen here?

 

The clock is ticking!

[Pioneer1]

 Where have I seen that name before?????
I know this isn't the first time I've seen it, despite you having only 2 posts.

 

 

 

 

umbrarchist

 

 

I was recently banned from the StraightDope message board. 

....doesn't look good on your resume, LOL.

 

 

I don't have questions about the Twin Towers.
I don't believe the official story....period point blank.
I don't think most people do.
 

My question for YOU is why waste time pointing out evidence that the public was being lied to and that the official story is incorrect, when most people know this already?

What the hell is being done about it?
 

If a group of White men were to come on television tomorrow night in black suits and shades saying THEY were the real reason behind the destruction of the towers and many other recent world events and they did it to promote their global agenda.....what will people DO about it anyway?


Fuck the WTC, I have serious questions about that major Earthquake down in Haiti back in 2010 which killed far more people.
Talk about conspiracies and what people with a secret agenda are able to pull off.

I believe THAT was man-made.
If I were to PROVE it somehow....then what?
What could I do about it or even prevent ANOTHER from happening, if they wanted to pull it off again???

[umbrarchist]

39 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 Where have I seen that name before?????
 

My question for YOU is why waste time pointing out evidence that the public was being lied to and that the official story is incorrect, when most people know this already?

Fuck the WTC, I have serious questions about that major Earthquake down in Haiti back in 2010 which killed far more people.
Talk about conspiracies and what people with a secret agenda are able to pull off.

Destee, LipstickAlley, been lots of places but did not always use that handle.

 

It is about that PHYSICS business.

 

I went to college for Electrical Engineering originally and imagined getting a Master's in EE and a Master's in physics.

 

I woke up instantly on 9/12/2001. I didn't work that week and normally I kind of drift awake. It was like one side of my brain was saying "That's IMPOSSIBLE!!!" and another side was saying "What the Hell are YOU talking about?"

 

When I went to college we could see the Sears Tower being constructed thru the living room window of the fraternity.  My white pledge father was a super senior architect. This was Illinois Institute of Technology and almost everybody was doing some kind of STEM.

 

So the destruction of the towers is not just a historical event, conspiracy or not. It was a Physics Defying Historical Event. The only recorded one I know of in HISTORY.

 

It also involves "education" now because an entire generation has been taught that a 200 ton airliner could destroy a 500,000 ton building in less than 2 hours. So since 9/11 Physics has been HISTORY.

 

Should Black people understand physics? You cannot build Wakanda without it.

[Troy]

@umbrarchist What did you write to get booted? I know exactly where Tyson lived.  I knew the family who lived there before him.

 

I too was puzzled on how both buildings could pancake so perfectly into on itself by being hit by an airplane (albeit jet fuel laden).  I assumed there was no conspiracy.  If there was one what was the point; warrantless surveillance, TSA, bombing the middle east?  Seems there were easier way to accomplish this without killing 3 thousand innocent American civilians.

 

I heard of Destee and Lipstick Alley, but never StraightDope I'll check that one out.  Did you ever try social media Facebook, Twitter and others?

 

 

[umbrarchist]

16 minutes ago, Troy said:

@umbrarchist What did you write to get booted? I know exactly where Tyson lived.  I knew the family who lived there before him.

 

I too was puzzled on how both buildings could pancake so perfectly into on itself by being hit by an airplane (albeit jet fuel laden).  I assumed there was no conspiracy.  If there was one what was the point; warrantless surveillance, TSA, bombing the middle east?  Seems there were easier way to accomplish this without killing 3 thousand innocent American civilians.

 

I heard of Destee and Lipstick Alley, but never StraightDope I'll check that one out.  Did you ever try social media Facebook, Twitter and others?

 

 

I was kicked off Twitter years ago. Some people cannot tell my hilarious sarcasm from true insults.

=======================

When did you research the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers, including the basements?

Did level 105 contain the same amount of steel as level 5 which had to support the weight of 21 times as many stories?

How do Two Decades go by without lots of “experts” discussing that?

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

As far as I know there is NO Thread on any message board going over all of this.

 

We would need 2 tables of 348 numbers. Each tower had 116 levels. The North Tower was 6 feet taller than the South.

 

What were the Tons of Steel in the Core on each level? What were the Tons of Steel in the Perimeter of each level? What were the Tons of Concrete on each level?

 

In May of 2008 Richard Gage, the founder of AE911Truth, ran one of his Dog & Pony Shows at the Chicago Circle Campus of the University of Illinois.

 

I was there! I got in line to ask him about the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers. He looked at me like I had grown a 2nd head and said that the NIST was not giving out accurate blueprints.

I had downloaded the NCSTAR1 report by the NIST in 2007. I have searched it hundreds of times for various information. The NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the Towers even though sources did that before 9/11 because they were such famous iconic buildings.

 

So why haven’t physicists and engineers all over the nation that put men on the Moon been demanding data on such Simple Questions

 

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

D Troll

4h

Did you actually read my post?

You know where to find that distribution of steel and concrete data?

 

Years ago I regularly communicated with Lon Waters. He had a PhD in Applied Mathematics. He ran a website showing the cross sections of the core columns all of the way up the towers. He said that he could not find data on the horizontal beams in the core.

 

With most of the levels 12 ft in height and 47 columns the length of horizontal steel on each level should have been about 2 1/2 times the length of vertical steel. Did the thickness of the horizontal beams vary down the structures?

 

There are now 30 skyscrapers taller than the Twin Towers were. There are 130 skyscrapers around the world over 1000 feet tall. The Empire State Building is more than 90 years old. The Eiffel Tower is more than 130 years old.

Questions about the distributions of steel and concrete should not be difficult for structural engineers. The failure to raise these questions in more than Two Decades is now more interesting than the answers to the questions.

 

I call it The Twin Towers Affair.

 

÷÷÷############÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

You are a conspiracy theorist. That sort of thinking is lazy and not welcome around here. Which you would already know had you actually read the thread before you posted.

You want to know how to ignore someone? There’s a little button in the upper right hand corner of your screen that looks like an x. Go ahead and click it and you’ll never have to read any more nasty messages on this board.

I’m done here.

 

÷÷÷÷÷÷###########÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

[Quote]Our friend the blacksmith should maybe have been even more emphatic in his dismissal of the CT cranks, because temperatures inside parts of the WTC may have been even higher than the 1800°F that he showed turning structural steel into a noodle.[/quote]

 

Temperature and thermal energy are related but somewhat different things.

 

A cubic foot of air is less than 2 ounces.

A cubic foot of steel is 490 pounds.

 

So how much air at 1800 degrees has to come into contact with the steel to raise the core temperature of the steel?

How long would it take? So what sense does it make to discuss this when the quantity of steel on each level is unknown? In fact the “experts” do not even raise the questions of the distribution of steel down the towers.

One of the hilarious things about this is the discussion of the South Tower coming down first. The common claim is that since the impact was lower down it had to support more weight. But since it was lower down there should have been more steel therefore more difficult to heat. Then there is the matter of the South Tower impact not going into the core and the fireball exploding out the side of the building.

 

The South Tower coming down first should be a red flag that something makes no sense.

 

Fireman got to the 78th floor and sent out a message just before the building came down.

 

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

ROFLMBAO

 

People who cannot think to ask about the distribution of steel down a 1000+ foot building in Two Decades talking about LAZY THINKING.

Just a bunch of clowns with delusions of intellectual adequacy.

 

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

Why is this relevant?

Ever heard of Physics?

Ever heard of gravity?

 

An airliner hit a 110 story building at the 93rd or 94th floor. It contained about 10,000 gallons, 34 tons, of jet fuel, sometimes known as kerosene.

 

In less than 2 hours the resulting damage caused the upper portion of the building to fall onto the lower intact portion causing a complete collapse in less than 30 seconds.

 

About which the NIST wrote:

“global collapse ensued” !!!

 

This involves mass, gravity, acceleration, the Conservation of Momentum, strength of materials, etc.

 

Conspiracies are IRRELEVANT!

 

Skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up and withstand the wind and the designers had to figure out how to distribute the steel and the weight of concrete which had to be supported. I would expect that the Eiffel Tower  would give everyone a clue about how the 100,000 tons of steel in the North Tower had to have been distributed. But there has been a distinct lack of interest in the initial conditions of the structure.

 

But instead almost 23 years have gone by without lots of “experts” not discussing some obvious details. Instead lots of non-experts have spent years yelling at each other.

 

I find the lack of mention of the Conversation of Momentum particularly interesting.

 

÷÷÷###########÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

Sorry guys, I banned the troll. I’m going to ask @Miller to close this thread as it is attracting nutters and 9/11 CT crap is not actually suppose to be discussed any more on the board.

 

I’m surprised no one flagged @umbrarchist.

 

÷÷÷###########÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

 

 

[umbrarchist]

I did not post the videos on StraightDope. This message board seems to grab posts by the same user and merge them. I have never seen that before. Damn software! LOL

[ProfD]

@Pioneer1, you're asking all of the *right* questions as it relates to these events.

 

The answer is solving the mysteries of historic events won't change anything.

 

instead, academics and TV show producers use historic events and mysteries as an industry to sell books, magazines, movies, documentaries, merchandise, etc.

 

Every few years, it seems we get new movies and documentaries about wars,  assassinations, engineering disasters and UFOs/UFAs and other science fiction.

 

There's no money in curing diseases or solving mysteries. It's all about maintenance.

[Troy]

12 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

So why haven’t physicists and engineers all over the nation that put men on the Moon been demanding data on such Simple Questions

That is a good question. Why do you think that is?

[umbrarchist]

StraightDope has locked the thread:

==============================

Sorry guys, I banned the troll. I’m going to ask @Miller to close this thread as it is attracting nutters and 9/11 CT crap is not actually suppose to be discussed any more on the board.

[Moderating]
Yeah, this has gone on long enough.

Thread closed.
[/Moderating]

==============================

So what I posted may sit there at the end forever.  LOL

StraightDope is more than 20 years old.

 

 

There is another site called SciForum. They put me on a temporary suspension for what they called "Intellectual dishonesty".  I never understood what that meant. No one accused me of lying or explained what was incorrect about anything I said. But the destruction of the towers is a forbidden subject there now.

Edited August 27, 2024 by umbrarchist
added more info

[umbrarchist]

2 hours ago, Troy said:

That is a good question. Why do you think that is?

A few months ago I was communicating with an architect via YouTube comments. He gave his name and I looked up his CV. He is on the East Coast affiliated with a major University.

 

He said that back in 2002 that he was talking to people explaining why airliner impact and fire could not do that. Apparently the school came down on him for that so he shut up. I go to vlogs run by scientists and engineers and try to bug them about this. They do not argue. They say Nothing and ignore me.

 

I used to buy Scientific American. I did not subscribe but I would check the news stand every month to see what the articles were. There would have to be 2 or more articles worth reading for me to buy. Entomology is science but I just don't care to read about it. LOL

 

But since they published their mindless report on 9/11 I don't even look anymore. Most STEM people who can tolerate the years of schooling BS are not exactly rebels.

 

I'm a dropout and sat in a chair imagining punching out some White woman for basically and smugly telling me that I had to go into debt the same amount for English literature as Circuit Analysis to get a degree.  I do not give a damn what palefaces regard as a well rounded education.  I just have too much self control, otherwise I would be in prison.

Edited August 27, 2024 by umbrarchist
improve grammar

[umbrarchist]

5 hours ago, ProfD said:

@Pioneer1, you're asking all of the *right* questions as it relates to these events.

 

The answer is solving the mysteries of historic events won't change anything.

 

instead, academics and TV show producers use historic events and mysteries as an industry to sell books, magazines, movies, documentaries, merchandise, etc.

 

Every few years, it seems we get new movies and documentaries about wars,  assassinations, engineering disasters and UFOs/UFAs and other science fiction.

 

There's no money in curing diseases or solving mysteries. It's all about maintenance.

Are you saying that Education and Logic are irrelevant and that Bull$hit should be promoted because it creates Cash Flow?

[aka Contrarian]

Maybe when they were constructing the twin towers, they cut corners to save time and money, knowing this was hazardous but figuring the chance of a plane flying into the buildings was highly unlikely. Maybe that's a trade secret and nobody wants to  let that be known. Maybe inspectors were routinely paid off to look the other way. Maybe there were a lot of fingers to be pointed.

Realizing now that terrorists might try this again, maybe any company  erecting skyscrapers after 9/11 makes sure not to bypass safety standards again.

 

...shoddy workmanship. 

maybe...

[ProfD]

7 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Are you saying that Education and Logic are irrelevant and that Bull$hit should be promoted because it creates Cash Flow?

Absolutely not. 

 

Education and logic are relevant. 

 

However, it seems a steady diet of BS definitely generates cash flow.

[Troy]

@umbrarchist I get it.  My question has to do with who is behind this conspiracy and what is their motivation?  The examples that you have accused Scientific American Magazine, university professors, the government, the broader scientific community even, by implication, StraightDope of hiding the truth. Who do you think has the power to corral all of these disparate entities and then to hide this story?

 

Any serious journalist would LOVE to discover and be the first to report any credible evidence that the WTC was destroyed deliberately (that is what you are saying right?).

 

Now we know Amiri Baraka got into trouble for saying that all the Jews stayed home.  But apparently all the Jews did not get the memo because Jewish people died during 911.

 

Now if it was a conspiracy, I don't actually think you would know who is behind it (please don't say the Illuminati  ).  But you can speculate on a reason for killing all those people.

[umbrarchist]

5 hours ago, Troy said:

@umbrarchist I get it.  My question has to do with who is behind this conspiracy and what is their motivation?  The examples that you have accused Scientific American Magazine, university professors, the government, the broader scientific community even, by implication, StraightDope of hiding the truth. Who do you think has the power to corral all of these disparate entities and then to hide this story?

 

Now if it was a conspiracy, I don't actually think you would know who is behind it (please don't say the Illuminati  ).  But you can speculate on a reason for killing all those people.

÷÷÷÷ aka contrarian ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

Maybe when they were constructing the twin towers, they cut corners to save time and money, knowing this was hazardous but figuring the chance of a plane flying into the buildings was highly unlikely. 

 

Realizing now that terrorists might try this again, maybe any company  erecting skyscrapers after 9/11 makes sure not to bypass safety standards again.

 

...shoddy workmanship. 

maybe...

I try not to come across as arrogant but this is a highly peculiar situation of saying that massive amounts of Authority are wrong.

 

I have not accused anyone of conspiracy or "hiding" anything though I am "pointing out" missing information. Calling it hiding implies that they have it.  I am saying that I do not understand why they are not looking for it and pointing out that it is important and missing. I can only guess at the psychology of these failures.

 

The maximum take off weight for the planes was 200 tons. They contained 10,000 gallons of fuel weighing about 34 tons.  Each tower is said to have been 500,000 tons. But there were 6 basement levels extending 70 feet below ground and I have Never seen any "experts" specify the below ground weight versus the above ground weight. What sense does that make.

 

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 Report by the NIST in 2007 and burned it to DVD.  That report is more than 10,000 pages and said to have cost $16,000,000. One would think that it had all of the important information.  I have searched it and read every paragraph containing the words 'steel' or 'concrete'.  Concrete is used more than 3,000 times.  Years ago I could have been more exact but I don't recall anymore. It is less than 4,000.

 

I have encountered the "shoddy construction" implication before. The buildings stood for 28 years. Skyscrapers must support their own weight and withstand the wind. This means that every level must be strong enough to hold the total weight of all higher levels. Should level 105 contain the same amount of steel as level 5 that had to support the weight of 21 times as many stories?  So why haven't lots of "experts" talked about or asked about the distribution of steel down the Towers? The NCSTAR1 Report mentions the total amount of steel three times, 200,000 tons for both buildings. Considering that the North Tower was 6 feet taller that seems rather cavalier with detail.

 

to be continued.  Tired of phone typing.

Edited August 28, 2024 by umbrarchist
Added size of NCSTAR1 Report

[Troy]

4 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Tired of phone typing.

Dictate Brother dictate

[umbrarchist]

12 hours ago, Troy said:

Dictate Brother dictate

I always wanted to be a Dictator. Trump is my Hero!

[umbrarchist]

OK, where was I? Oh yeah, "shoddy construction"!

 

The buildings still stood for 28 years and had to withstand gravity and the wind. The original specs claim that the buildings were supposed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. Someone told me on some website that the wind had reached 100 mph on 6 occasions during the life of the buildings. I was never able to find that information however.

Ha, I can ask ChatGPT:

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

For example:

1. **Hurricane Floyd (1999):** Brought strong winds to New York City, although the exact wind speeds at the height of the Twin Towers are not specifically recorded.
   
2. **Nor'easters:** These powerful storms, common in the northeastern United States, can produce very high winds, especially at higher elevations like those of the Twin Towers.

3. **Hurricane Gloria (1985):** Another strong storm that passed close enough to New York City to produce high winds.

 

Engineers designed the Twin Towers to withstand wind speeds of up to 150 mph, anticipating that such conditions might occur during their lifespan.

 

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

The force of the wind applied to the Towers would be greater than that of an airliner, the difference would be one of concentration in a small area. In 1991 tests were conducted with accelerometers at the tops of the towers. I presume that synchronized motion and wind data they could do strength calculations on the towers looking for weaknesses. This was reported in the NCSTAR1 by the NIST but only that it was done. So how does "shoddy construction" construction take that for 28 years. And there was a fire in the 70s and a bomb in '93.

 

On 9/11 there was a digital camera pointed towards the South Tower catching at the 70th floor. I presume that it was pointed at the top of the North Tower and happened to catch the South Tower at the moment of impact. The building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor even though the plane impacted at the 81st floor. It should have deflected 14 to 15 inches there. The building then oscillated for four minutes after impact getting progressively smaller exhibiting a behavior known as "damped oscillation". Knowing the mass and velocity of the plane I would think that NIST could have extracted some information about the condition of the building from analyzing the motion. But they did not say anything further about it. This was the motivation for the second video called the Mass Impact Test.

 

The collapse of the South Tower presents some different issues than the North. It was hit second an yet came down first.  It was hit lower down than the North Tower, at level 81 instead of 94.  Also the South Tower impact did not go directly into the core. The fuselage of the aircraft scraped the corner of the core and went into the open office area and exploded. That is why so many pictures show a huge fireball outside of the building. This resulted in less damage to the core and an intact stairwell by which a few people who were above the impact zone escaped.

Since the 81st level had to support more weight it should have contained more steel than the impact region of WTC1. That combined with sustaining less damage due to the airliner trajectory, how can the earlier collapse of WTC2 be explained? More steel should have taken longer to heat up to the point of weakening.

 

Firemen reached the 78th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and at 9:52 a m. sent out the message:

 "Battalion Seven...Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones (victims)."

It was Battalion Chief Orio Palmer of the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) on the radio. He and Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca managed to reach the impact zone before the tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m.

 

Palmer's radio message provided crucial information about the situation on the upper floors.  How could "two isolated pockets of fire" cause what happened Seven Minutes later?

 

Was someone else monitoring the Fire Department's radio communications and concluded that putting the fires out could not be allowed, so they took 7 minutes to decide to activate their own radio controls?

 

Two Decades go by without discussion of the steel and concrete distributions! Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped like that?

 

Bang, bang, Smash!!!

You are under arrest umbrarchist for unauthorized paranoid speculation!

 

Edited August 28, 2024 by umbrarchist
add a sentence

[umbrarchist]

@aka Contrarian

 

I fail to see what is confusing.

 

The ending was my idea of a joke of course.

[aka Contrarian]

@umbrarchistSo, was it all just a quirk of fate- a series of random circumstances  involving human error? 

I have a short attention span these days.

[umbrarchist]

2 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

@umbrarchistSo, was it all just a quirk of fate- a series of random circumstances  involving human error? 

I have a short attention span these days.

My point is that the event has not been analyzed properly to determine whether or not the airliner impact and fire could cause what we saw.

Personally I doubt extremely much that the airliners could do it.

 

Shouldn't "experts" be able to create very accurate simulations of the North Tower? Then raise the top 20 stories 64 feet and drop them. The bottom of the 91st story would impact the top of the 90th level at 64 feet/sec or 43.6 mph. Due to gravitational acceleration being 32 ft/sec**2 the 20 stories would have fallen for 2 seconds. Since 90 and 91 were adjacent levels they would be very similar in weight and strength. So they would crush each other. But that destruction takes energy. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass, so it slows down the upper falling mass.

 

Next levels 89 and 92 interact with the rubble of 90 and 91 in between. But 89 is somewhat heavier and stronger than 92. There is similar destruction but 89 wins by a little bit and the falling mass slows down more. So this scenario has 20 stories beating on 90 stories but while the 90 stories get stronger and heavier all of the way down, the 20 stories get weaker and lighter all of the way up.

 

So why haven't "experts" been talking about the distributions of steel and concrete for two decades? And where are the data to do a simulation after Two Decades?

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9iczb3-Zbo

 

Go to 33 seconds to skip the BS intro music.

Edited August 29, 2024 by umbrarchist
Add video, and comment on video, fixing verbal errors

[aka Contrarian]

 @umbrarchistbelow is what Meta AI says about the 9/11 "affair".  Is it the official response? Does it ignore your questions. 

 

 

The twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, due to a combination of factors related to the terrorist attacks that day. Here's a brief summary: 

1. *Impact damage*: Commercial airplanes, hijacked by terrorists, intentionally crashed into the towers, causing significant damage to the exterior columns and floors.
2. *Fires*: The impact and subsequent fires weakened the steel structures, particularly the trusses and columns. The fires burned at extremely high temperatures, causing the steel to lose strength and stiffness.
3. *Structural failure*: As the fires continued to burn, the steel structures began to fail, leading to a progressive collapse. The towers' design, which included a central core and perimeter columns, contributed to the collapse.
4. *Pancaking effect*: As the upper floors collapsed, they fell onto the lower floors, creating a "pancaking" effect that increased the force of the collapse.
5. *Global collapse*: The combination of these factors led to a global collapse of both towers, with the South Tower falling at 9:59 a.m. and the North Tower at 10:28 a.m.

The 9/11 Commission Report, published in 2004, provides a detailed analysis of the events and factors contributing to the collapse of the twin towers. It's important to note that the report concludes that the collapse was not caused by a controlled demolition, as some conspiracy theories suggest, but rather the result of the damage and fires caused by the terrorist attacks.

[umbrarchist]

16 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

 @umbrarchistbelow is what Meta AI says about the 9/11 "affair".  Is it the official response? Does it ignore your questions. 

 

 

The twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, due to a combination of factors related to the terrorist attacks that day. Here's a brief summary: 

.
4. *Pancaking effect*: As the upper floors collapsed, they fell onto the lower floors, creating a "pancaking" effect that increased the force of the collapse..

The "pancake" splatter is the most hilarious factor in this Twin Towers Affair.

 

This is NIST:

 

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

 

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

 

What is invariably completely missing from all of these discussions is the horizontal beams in the core. You will see 'core' mentioned and 'columns' and 'trusses' that were in the floors outside of the core. But the horizontal beams that held the core columns together invariably disappear.  The total length of that steel had to be about 2 1/2 times the length of the vertical steel. Did the thickness of the horizontal steel increase down the building? I would expect that it did but in actuality I DO NOT KNOW.  And I am not the only person who has looked. Lon Waters PhD in applied mathematics used to have a website showing the column cross sections all of the way down the building told me that he couldn't find that info. That is why I talk about the tons of steel on each level. The horizontal beams in the core would have to be a significant part of that.

[umbrarchist]

54 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

 @umbrarchistbelow is what Meta AI says about the 9/11 "affair".  Is it the official response? Does it ignore your questions. 

 

 

The twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, due to a combination of factors related to the terrorist attacks that day. Here's a brief summary: 

2. *Fires*: The impact and subsequent fires weakened the steel structures, particularly the trusses and columns. The fires burned at extremely high temperatures, causing the steel to lose strength and stiffness.

That is an assumption which cannot be supported because they cannot talk about the quantity of steel in the core.

 

Steel conducts heat.  Welders need torches that reach 3000 degrees because a large piece of steel conducts heat away so fast that the spot to be welded will not get hot enough at low temperatures. Vertical beams in the core could be 36 feet long. Part of a column on one floor could be out of the fire on another floor. Plus those horizontal beams in the core that are constantly disappearing would be conducting heat away as well.

 

[[[[[. The temperature of a welding torch can vary depending on the type of welding process: 

• Oxy-fuel welding: The flame can reach temperatures of around 6,000 °F (3,320 °C), which is enough heat to melt steel.

• Oxy-fuel gas cutting: The preheat flame can reach temperatures of 4,400–6,000 °F, depending on the fuel gas and the ratio of oxygen to fuel gas. 

•  
• TIG welding: The TIG process can produce temperatures of up to 19,000 °C. ]]]]]]]
   

Why is there never any mention of the amount of steel in the region of fire for the South Tower compared to the North?

 

It was farther down so there should have been more steel but the South Tower came down first even though it was hit later. Overall the North Tower lasted about 45 minutes longer.

Edited August 29, 2024 by umbrarchist
Spelling errors

[aka Contrarian]

@umbrachist: Why have you spent 23 years of your life seeking explanations about this 9/11 event? Are you a conspiracy theorist? 

[umbrarchist]

A conspiracy is a group of people cooperating in some activity, presumably nefarious.

 

The Laws of Physics do not care about people. Engineering is applied Physics!

This is solving a physics problem to me and I do not even regard it as a particularly difficult one.

 

Does a person need a Degree in Structural Engineering to figure out that Level 5 of a 110 story building must support more weight than Level 105? Doesn't that imply that the amount of steel increased down the Twin Towers.  Why is the Eiffel Tower built like that.  And yet can anyone find "Experts" demanding or discussing accurate data of that type about those buildings? I would have thought most people would have found that peculiar long ago.

 

I say NO, to being a Conspiracy Theorist, because I don't really care about the perps. But I find indoctrinating an entire generation of people with Delusional Cartoon Physics to be really eFed Up.

 

Try using a search engine on Horizontal Beams in Core of WTC.  Didn't they exist. At this point all of the engineering schools in the US are accomplices after the fact.

 

Has anybody watched the two videos?

 

https://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

 

Of course I might be insane and everyone else is NORMAL. Try finding steel distribution data on any skyscraper in the world.

Edited August 30, 2024 by umbrarchist
add link

[Pioneer1]

Umbrarchist
 

I too thought you were mentioning all of the engineering and mathematical stuff as evidence that those buildings shouldn't have totally collapsed as easy as they did simply because a couple of planes crashed into them.
I thought it was leading to another conclusion.

I didn't realize that ALL you cared about was how their collapsed defied certain laws of physics and as an engineer left you perplexed.....for real, lol.

 

[umbrarchist]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Umbrarchist

I didn't realize that ALL you cared about was how their collapsed defied certain laws of physics and as an engineer left you perplexed.....for real, lol.

Something destroyed the buildings.

 

I am reasonably certain that the airliners' impacts and fires could not have done it and have studied reports by people like Frank Greening and Tony Szamboti and more that you have probably never heard of. I find this situation very strange! And before 9/11 would not have even thought it possible.

 

This society must not have been what I thought it was in 2000.

[aka Contrarian]

@umbrachist: Have you considered alien intervention? 

 

As Troy previously asked, what would be the motive behind a conspiracy by earthlings, and what was accomplished other than the tremendous loss of innocent lives, and a 20-year skirmish in Afghanistan? Who benefited from that conflict other than the military industrial complex?

[umbrarchist]

1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said:

@umbrachist: Have you considered alien intervention? 

 

As Troy previously asked, what would be the motive behind a conspiracy by earthlings, and what was accomplished other than the tremendous loss of innocent lives, and a 20-year skirmish in Afghanistan? Who benefited from that conflict other than the military industrial complex?

Hell NO!

 

There was an issue with the aluminum cladding on the towers and the salt air in New York that would cost billions to fix.

 

https://exoptica.typepad.com/blogoptica/2008/07/as-i-mentioned-in-my-earlier-post-july-18-2008-in-1971-i-wasa-design-developmentdraftsmanworking-at-yamasakis-architect.html

 

Then there was the issue of the insurance.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html

 

I am not wading through and arguing about all of that humanistic crap when people won't address a simple physics problem.

 

How was the steel distributed down the structures and the human side of that is: Why did it get shipped out of the country so fast?

 

[aka Contrarian]

Well, that settles that. It was like pulling teeth to get a plausible answer. Now I can get some sleep tonight.

How 'bout you?

[ProfD]

5 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

Now I can get some sleep tonight.

I take it you won't be dreaming about solving physics problems. 

[umbrarchist]

56 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

Well, that settles that. It was like pulling teeth to get a plausible answer. Now I can get some sleep tonight.

How 'bout you?

Now I am confused.

 

What was I not ever clear about? It sounds like you were more interested in my motivation than what I was talking about.

 

49 minutes ago, ProfD said:

I take it you won't be dreaming about solving physics problems. 

 

Sounds like the first 3 weeks after 9/11.

Edited August 31, 2024 by umbrarchist
spacing

[aka Contrarian]

 @umbrachist: I was more interested in your motivation than your physics lessons.  

What goes on inside a person's head is more interesting to me than  someone losing sleep over a brick and mortar scenario. To spend 23 years wondering out loud why others don't acknowledge what is obvious to you, sounds like an obsession.

I'm sure you can relate to my reaction since I suspect you and others feel the same way about my preoccupation with the occult. Kinda like ProfDs fixation on  reparations and Pioneer's fanaticism about race. 

 

Whatever.

 

[umbrarchist]

33 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

 @umbrachist: I was more interested in your motivation than your physics lessons.  

What goes on inside a person's head is more interesting to me than  someone losing sleep over a brick and mortar scenario. To spend 23 years wondering out loud why others don't acknowledge what is obvious to you, sounds like an obsession.

I'm sure you can relate to my reaction since I suspect you and others feel the same way about my preoccupation with the occult. Kinda like ProfDs fixation on  reparations and Pioneer's fanaticism about race. 

 

Whatever.

 

You make it sound like the only thing I was doing for 23 years was concentrating on 9/11.

 

You see physics affects economics.

You buy a car and it gets added to GDP.

You drive the car and it slowly wears down. That is Physical Depreciation.

The car slowly becomes less valuable and will get you less when you try to sell it. That is Financial Depreciation.

 

There is something called Net Domestic Product which economists do not say much about. In 1976 I came to the conclusion that economists cannot do algebra.

 

In 2005 after 9/11 I emailed 500+ economists around the world about this. Most did not respond but someone from the London School of Economics sent back, "What are we supposed to do about it?"

 

There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the United States in 1995. Where is the depreciation of all of the consumer junk tracked. You see the Net Domestic Product only subtracts the depreciation of Capital Goods like industrial robots and 18-wheel trucks.

 

When I figured this out in 1976 the world population had just passed 4 billion people. Now we are past 8 billion. 

 

So actually I do not consider the destruction of the Twin Towers to be a really Big Deal.

 

I put this on the Internet in February of 1999:

 

Economic Wargames by Dal Timgar

 

https://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html

 

.

Edited August 31, 2024 by umbrarchist
Add a link, add bolding

[umbrarchist]

9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Umbrarchist

I didn't realize that ALL you cared about was how their collapsed defied certain laws of physics and as an engineer left you perplexed.....for real, lol.

 

I could speculate about the cause but that is all it would be, speculation. People with more credentials than me should have done a better analysis of the physics.

 

But that presents another issue. If it can be proven that airliners could not have destroyed the towers then someone, some organization, was responsible for whatever did destroy them.

 

Some powerful organization that does not have the slightest problem with killing people as though they were flies.

 

Who wants to deal with that?

[aka Contrarian]

@umbrachist: I find quantum.physics much more interesting and intriguing.

[Pioneer1]

Umbrarchist

 

 

Some powerful organization that does not have the slightest problem with killing people as though they were flies.
Who wants to deal with that?

I don't....lol.

Which is why I said in my earlier post:

"If I were to PROVE it somehow....then what?
What could I do about it or even prevent ANOTHER from happening, if they wanted to pull it off again???"

I can ponder on a lot of things, however I'd rather focus my physical energy on solving problems I actually have a good chance of SOLVING and doing something about.

[umbrarchist]

8 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

@umbrachist: I find quantum.physics much more interesting and intriguing.

 

Good luck with that.

[umbrarchist]

There is this website called Quora.

People go there and discuss a lot of different subjects. For some reason questions related to IQ come up a lot.

 

Question:

How do people with an IQ of 140 think?

 

Answer:

The real question is how do the vast majority of people Not Think? It is like they run on contagious non-thinking ideas. Sources like advertising and propagandists work at manipulating those ideas.

 

Someone made a post here saying that he had taken lots of tests at different ages. The lowest score he ever got was 132 and the highest was 159, so what does one score prove? Measuring human performance is not like measuring a table. My score is over 133, that is all I am saying.

 

But how is it that nearly 23 years have gone by without lots of “experts” demanding and discussing accurate data on the distribution of steel down the North Tower? Did level 105 of a 110 story skyscraper contain the same amount of steel as level 5 which had to support the weight of 21 times as many stories? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped the way it is?

 

So how do people in the bottom 90% NOT THINK!?!?!???

 

If we are supposed to believe the results of the Idiot Quotient tests consider if the schools mostly indoctrinate kids to Not Think.

 

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

 

A nun told me that I would get into a good high school but I would not do well. I got straight D's in religion. I guess she was right.

 

The purpose of the Internet is to mess with the planet.

Edited September 1, 2024 by umbrarchist
Import file

[umbrarchist]

The Laws of Physics got cancelled on 9/11!

 

Suppose you could make a perfect computer simulation of the North Tower. You then take the top 20 stories and raise them 64 feet.

 

That is what is so cool about computer simulations, you can do things that are impossible in reality.

 

Then you drop the 20 stories onto the bottom 90. Of course there is simulated gravity. The 20 stories would fall for 2 seconds impacting at 64 ft/sec or 43.6 mph. You can do metric if you want but this being an American building I will stick with the primitive British system. The French can simulate the collapse of the Eiffel Tower if they want but it does not have enough concrete to be interesting.

 

Anyway the bottom of the 91st level would impact the top of the 90th and they should proceed to destroy each other. Being adjacent levels they should not be very different so we can assume equal destruction. But because of the Conservation of Momentum and the energy expended doing said destruction the falling mass should slow down. This is the result of the Potential Energy of raising the mass 64 feet being turned into Kinetic Energy and some gets used up bending steel and cracking concrete.

 

But then 92 has to take on 89 with a lot of crushed up mess in between. However 89 is heavier and stronger than 92. Probably not a great difference but still some. So 92 suffers more damage than 89. And the falling mass slows down some more.

 

Now the levels keep getting stronger and heavier coming down while the falling portion gets lighter and weaker going up.

 

Could 20 stories destroy 90 stories?

 

And Yet! And yet!

 

When and where have engineers and scientists been demanding accurate data on the distributions of Steel and Concrete down the Twin Towers?

 

We cannot make the simulation without that data.

 

Who cares about the Conservation of Momentum?

 

Curses, foiled again!

 

915 vucnt

.

Edited September 4, 2024 by umbrarchist
paragraph spacing, view count

[Troy]

On 8/27/2024 at 8:14 PM, umbrarchist said:

I have not accused anyone of conspiracy or "hiding" anything though I am "pointing out" missing information. Calling it hiding implies that they have it.  I am saying that I do not understand why they are not looking for it and pointing out that it is important and missing. I can only guess at the psychology of these failures.

 

On 8/31/2024 at 3:35 AM, umbrarchist said:

But that presents another issue. If it can be proven that airliners could not have destroyed the towers then someone, some organization, was responsible for whatever did destroy them.

What organization is powerful enough to get a bunch of guys together to fly airplanes into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and  potentially the White House all to create a plausible excuse for the destruction of the world trade centers?

 

Why would that organization do that; to flex their muscles, just for kicks, why?

 

Without a plausible suspect and motivation I think is more reasonable to believe airplanes alone caused the collapse absent analysis from a reputable body with evidence to the counter (all due respect to your analysis).

[umbrarchist]

On 9/4/2024 at 6:32 AM, Troy said:

What organization is powerful enough to get a bunch of guys together to fly airplanes into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and  potentially the White House all to create a plausible excuse for the destruction of the world trade centers?

 

Why would that organization do that; to flex their muscles, just for kicks, why?

 

Without a plausible suspect and motivation I think is more reasonable to believe airplanes alone caused the collapse absent analysis from a reputable body with evidence to the counter (all due respect to your analysis).

 

This is why I concentrate strictly on the physics of the Twin Towers. I don't even deal with building 7. There are too many directions and tangents on directions to deal with them all. But structural engineers and physicists must be derelict in their duties to not solve this.

 

I won't make any claims about it but there was, and maybe still is, a video on YouTube analyzing the flight path of the plane that hit the South Tower. The video claims that the plane flew in a STRAIGHT line, then made a turn, flew another STRAIGHT line, made a last turn and went straight into the building.

 

That is not how a human being flies.

That is how a computer flies.

 

I have no dog in that fight. It is merely Fascinating!

 

Steel must be properly distributed for 1400 foot skyscrapers to hold themselves up and the Conservation of Momentum does not care about conspiracies. It is just physics and lots of people with degrees sticking their heads in the sand.

 

925 vus

.

Edited September 5, 2024 by umbrarchist
View count, Fascinating

[Delano]

On 8/31/2024 at 4:15 PM, aka Contrarian said:

I'm sure you can relate to my reaction since I suspect you and others feel the same way about my preoccupation with the occult.

I am clearly more in that camp. Magic is the central component of most of my life 

On 8/31/2024 at 4:15 PM, aka Contrarian said:

Kinda like ProfDs fixation on  reparations and Pioneer's fanaticism about race. 

And my devotion is to the esoteric.

[aka Contrarian]

@Umbrachist: The TV show 60 minutes dedicated their last Sunday's show entirely to discussing what happened at the twin towers on 9/11 23 years ago. 

Among the many things they reported was a brief explanation, claiming that the towers were not constructed to withstand what happened when fires occurred that would reach a certain degree, citing some kind of reference to foam(?) which the air planes caused to catch on fire??? 

Did you, by any chance, watch this program?

[umbrarchist]

2 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

@Umbrachist: The TV show 60 minutes dedicated their last Sunday's show entirely to discussing what happened at the twin towers on 9/11 23 years ago. 

Among the many things they reported was a brief explanation, claiming that the towers were not constructed to withstand what happened when fires occurred that would reach a certain degree, citing some kind of reference to foam(?) which the air planes caused to catch on fire??? 

Did you, by any chance, watch this program?

 

No, I did not see it.

What did they say about the thermal capacity and conductivity of steel?

 

Let's say you have a cubic foot of air at 75° fahrenheit. Then you raise the temperature to 2000° fahrenheit. Assuming you could do this with 100% efficiency and no loss of energy (probably impossible) then it would be some specific amount of energy required to do that.

 

However a cubic foot of air weighs less than 2 ounces. A cubic foot of steel weighs in the neighborhood of 490 pounds. Steel is about 95% iron with various controlled impurities. So if you brought a cubic foot of 2000° air in contact with a cubic foot of steel at 75° fahrenheit what would happen?  The surface of the steel would get hot but it would rapidly conduct heat deeper into the steel, the temperature of the air would drop starting convection currents.  Once the temperatures stabilized I bet the temperature of the steel block would not rise 5°.

 

We still have the issue of AUTHORITY Never telling us how much steel was in any area of the building. 100,000 tons of steel divided over 116 levels is 862 tons per level. There should have been less toward the top, but one of my complaints is that they do not tell us the distribution. But that comes to 1700 cubic feet of steel in around 500,000 cubic feet of space per level. A bit much to heat up to weakening in 2 hours.

 

Of course then there is the conductivity problem. The vertical beam sections would have been 30 to 36 feet long. 12 feet of a beam could be on a level that was on fire and 24 feet not. The heat is conducted away.

 

But for the most part I may not arguing about the fire. I am saying the collapse supposedly caused by the fire is impossible.  The falling top of the North Tower would either stop after destroying less than 30 stores below, or it would fall down the side.

 

So how can there be 150+ skyscrapers around the world over 1000 feet tall, but not plenty of "experts" able to figure out and tell us the distribution of steel down the towers and why so many videos where they do not even discuss the distribution of steel.

 

Look at the Eiffel Tower. 

 

Believe what you prefer.

Belief is not science.

[aka Contrarian]

@umbrarchistThe program's main focus was on the human interest back stories about the firefighters who lost their lives. They kept emphasizing how heroic these men were and that they knew the buildings were in danger of collapsing, but they kept on climbing up the stairs to get to the trapped occupants. 

I'm not taking sides in this debate

 I've just developed a curiosity about it. It's like what happened was a combination of Murphy's Law, and the perfect storm phenomenon. All the conditions were present for everything that could go wrong,to go wrong; and it did... 

Kinda like the Titanic.

[umbrarchist]

10 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

@umbrarchistThe program's main focus was on the human interest back stories about the firefighters who lost their lives. They kept emphasizing how heroic these men were and that they knew the buildings were in danger of collapsing, but they kept on climbing up the stairs to get to the trapped occupants. 

I'm not taking sides in this debate

 I've just developed a curiosity about it. It's like what happened was a combination of Murphy's Law, and the perfect storm phenomenon. All the conditions were present for everything that could go wrong,

 to go wrong; and they did... 

Kinda like the Titanic.

 

Ships have sunk for centuries.

 

What sense does it make to not talk about the distribution of steel down a collapsed skyscraper when the steel is what held it up in the first place?

[aka Contrarian]

I don't know why what you want to know is not being answered. And at this point, I leave you to marinate in your frustration.

[umbrarchist]

3 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

I don't know why what you want to know is not being answered. And at this point, I leave you to marinate in your frustration.

Thanx, I just found this:

 

 

If you consider my emotional state to be more important than a physics problem that has affected the world, that is your business.

I left a comment:

=============================

This leaves all of the engineering schools in America with a peculiar physics problem. How do they explain the collapses without talking about the distribution of steel down the towers?

 

Think about the shape of the 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower. How was the steel distributed down the North Tower. Do you think level 105 contained the same amount of steel as level 5 that had to support the weight of 21 times as many stories?

 

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report in 2007. No data on the horizontal beams in the core.

.