+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Coming apart like an old suitcase

    http://www.bigissuescotland.com/late....cfm?intPage=1

    Gordon.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Well Gordon, does that article reflect your beliefs about the events that surrounded 9/11?

    .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Can't find anything new to knock the administration for? If you read the article closely, you will see the key "evidence" that the government failed to get in time was from a suspect in 1993....hmmm...anyone remember who was running the administration then?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    I'm glad you asked, grim17, because I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately, trying to find a very obvious and understandable way of describing the scenario. I must stress that the difficult part of this quest was to make it really easy to understand. What I have in mind is a set of easily verifiable facts which relate to each other and should tell you why I know that the theory proposed in the NIST report is fundamentally flawed. Once we have disposed of that theory we can work on the next one.

    This is the easiest proof I have found so far. There are others. Similarly my argument is arranged to make it easy to counter should you wish (or be able). Prove me wrong on any of these points or prove that the logic is flawed and you disprove this part of my theory.
    1/ A steel beam (a floor) simply supported and fixed at its ends (to a wall) will sag due to its own mass or any mass placed upon it. The forces induced will be comprised of a vertical force downwards through the wall and a pulling force inwards on the wall. these forces will increase if and only if the mass increases. (if you put more weight on the floor)
    2/ If the beam is heated it will sag more due to its thermal expansion, but it will not increase the pulling or downward forces since it will not weigh anymore. (The minor difference in angle of incidence would decrease the pulling force.)
    3/If the beam is heated but prevented from expanding naturally it will exert outward pushing forces on the walls.
    4/Differential vertical thermal expansion of the core and walls will similarly induce an outward pushing force on the walls by the floor. (or more correctly an inward pushing force by the walls on the floors)
    5/There is no other force which could have acted inwardly on the walls other than the forces due to the total weight of the individual floors and their contents. .
    6/All additional forces due to thermal expansion acted outwards on the wall.
    8/Since the wall was vertical before collision any deflection in the wall caused by a change in force would have been outward.
    5/The NIST report states that they introduced an inward pulling force by the floors on the walls in their model and this formed part of the collapse initiation scenario.
    9/ The NIST report does not identify the origin of the force which they included in the model.
    10/ The initiation collapse scenario contained within the NIST report is reliant upon a non-existant force.


    Gordon.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    I'm not even going to try Gordon. lol Good research though.

    But for all of that to be true and absolute, implies something too outlandish and unbelievably complex to be believed without evidence of a conspiracy. I have seen science proven wrong many times and with something so huge as this disaster, the thought that man may not know everything about the physical collapse of those buildings seems to me to be very possible.

    Hope you can respect that.

    .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Gordon, are you an engineer?
    While I am not exactly sure what youa re trying to prove here, it appears that you are trying to prove the trade center towers would not have collapsed as they did unless other forces where acting upon them (ie an explosive device maybe)

    First you need to understand everything has a breaking point.
    Second you need to understand how the towers where constructed.
    Third you need to know what the added weight of the planes did to the downard force on the nearest intact floor along with any other material that had fallen on it after the crash.
    Fourth you need to understand what super heating the steel beams in the floor does to their ability to sustain the load placed on them.

    Try a little experiment and get back to us with the results.

    Build yourself a square tower using card, dominos, books standing on end, whatever. Be sure there is no center support, only the support of the outside walls.

    Now, add weight to the top floor until it collapses and watch very carefully how it fall down. It will collapse to the floor below it and then the next gradually picking up speed as it goes.

    Now think about what happened to the towers.

    Plane basically lands on one of the floors adding additional downard force.
    Fire heats up the steel beams causing them the buckle.
    Floor finally gives way.
    building collapses in on itself just like your little model will if you try it.

    This inward pulling force you note in your point list is caused by the beams melting and bowing downward. As the buckle down, they reach a point of pulling on the outside supporting wall before finally giving way.

    Your points list assumes that steel beams do not bend when they reach a melting point. This assumption is flawed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Two very quick replies. firstly to grim17. I don't know what else went on before and on that day and cannot speculate without moving away from the firm ground that my engineering education gives me. I' m not saying what did happen, just what didn't. I can respect your point of view and even though we may differ in our political thinking I can appreciate your abilities to put an argument together. I agree that we will never know everything about the collapse, but we do know that the laws of physics were upheld.

    Secondly to Regulation.
    Several obvious flaws
    Most Importantly your scenario states. "Floor finally gives way"........
    I add, therebv severing its connection to the wall, and its ability to transmit the pulling force (which I say is non-existent anyway).
    Collapse scenario interrupted.?????? Walls, (still inside their elastic limit) tend to return to their equilibrium position.
    No one said the beams melted and even if they did this would not make them heavier.
    Sagging would have decreased any inward pulling force due to a change in the angle at which the floor abuts the wall.
    Your assertion that the weight of the aircraft was part of the collapse scenario is not supported by NIST or myself. Its magnitude was not significant. (A B25 bomber hit one of the towers years ago. People were back at work next day. )
    Steel bends at all temperatures from well below freezing till it moves to a liquid state at 1500 C approx. Its ability to bend gives it its strength.
    Your scenario infers that a steel structure or even a steel bar when subject to certain loads and heats will reach a point where all of its abilities simply disappear like your house of cards or books. It doesn't, it still retains some or all of its characteristics, especially the relatively cold areas.
    You did hit the nail on the head with your comment on gradually picking up speed. The graduallness, if there is such a word is dependent on the resistance met. Free-fall in gravity means no resistance has been met.
    Try your experiment with steel or something similar.
    Gordon

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    why is this a focus on the buildings!?they were built cheap!end of story!the article has much more to say then that!by the way, i was forced to watch farenheit 9/11 on turkeyday.i was expecting a cheap shot joke of a said documentary.instead i found it to be very good and enlightening!not specifically a bush bashing film but an exposure of the american way of life.or human nature if you will.the game is king of the hill!!(capitol hill!?)period!! :eek: :p :rolleyes:
    Last edited by lexx; 11-27-2005 at 04:00 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx
    why is this a focus on the builings!?they were built cheap!end of story!:
    Not true
    NIST report states specifically and categorically that this was not the case. In fact they go on to state that some parts of the steel were of a higher specification than was called for.
    Gordon.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Quote Originally Posted by gordon
    Not true
    NIST report states specifically and categorically that this was not the case. In fact they go on to state that some parts of the steel were of a higher specification than was called for.
    Gordon.
    ok......if not cheap then just a bad design.what else can explain floor collapsings all the way down to the ground!?!?! :eek: :p :rolleyes:

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Gordon,

    You really need to understand how the building was constructed. "The Learning Channel" did a very nice story on the towers prior to the attacks that is very insightful.

    They also did a follow up, interviewing several different engineers asking them to explain what happened. It had a very nice computer simulation of the collapse and why it happened.

    Your assumptions are flawed in you seem to be thinking of this building as a shell that the floors where attached to and if the floor broke loose all that would happen is the next floor would support it.

    Another thing you are failing to factor into the equation is what kind of weakening was caused by the B-52 that hit the building and the bombing that took place as well.

    By the way, there is a HUGE difference between a B-52 and a commercial airliner fully loaded with jet fuel. The TLC episode actually talked about the differences.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx
    ok......if not cheap then just a bad design.what else can explain floor collapsings all the way down to the ground!?!?! :eek: :p :rolleyes:
    Lexx the collapse was cause by a bad design just as you stated.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Gordon,

    You really need to understand how the building was constructed.
    It had a very nice computer simulation of the collapse and why it happened.

    Your assumptions are flawed........

    I do understand the construction, I've read the reports.
    I have a computer simulation of an Italian plumber doing all sorts of things. His name is Super Mario.
    What assumptions do you assume I have made? I haven't made any assumptions.


    Here's another glaring hole for you to chew on. The NIST report talks about the "tremendous energy" of the upper section immediately prior to collapse initiation. "Tremendous" is hardly a scientific word so let us actually quantify it. Potential Energy is found by multiplying the mass by the gravitational pull by the height of the mass from ground. None of these had changed so the PE was exactly the same as it was before collision. Kinetic Energy is a function of the mass and velocity. The mass may be difficult to quantify but the velocity is easy, because immediately prior to collapse initiation it was zero. Ergo the KE was zero. So at the exact point in time that the NIST report talks about the "tremendous energy" of the upper section, it was in fact exactly the same as it was in all the days leading up to the collision.


    There's lots more flaws.
    There's even a magic bolt if you want to here about it.
    This is not a good report upon which to pin your hopes.
    Gordon.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Quote Originally Posted by gordon
    Here's another glaring hole for you to chew on. The NIST report talks about the "tremendous energy" of the upper section immediately prior to collapse initiation. "Tremendous" is hardly a scientific word so let us actually quantify it. Potential Energy is found by multiplying the mass by the gravitational pull by the height of the mass from ground. None of these had changed so the PE was exactly the same as it was before collision. Kinetic Energy is a function of the mass and velocity. The mass may be difficult to quantify but the velocity is easy, because immediately prior to collapse initiation it was zero. Ergo the KE was zero. So at the exact point in time that the NIST report talks about the "tremendous energy" of the upper section, it was in fact exactly the same as it was in all the days leading up to the collision.
    Mass: the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field

    While the property of the building may not have changed, adding a 127.5+ tons to the top of the building defintely changed the property of the whole.

    Just about every "conspiracy theory" I have read, focuses on the lateral strength of the towers. I have yet to read one that talks about the Verticle strength.

    However, your Mario Brothers comment shows you are more interested in figuring out how to misled people then you are at understanding what happened.

    Good luck in your quest.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE

    While the property of the building may not have changed, adding a 127.5+ tons to the top of the building defintely changed the property of the whole.
    Just about every "conspiracy theory" I have read, focuses on the lateral strength of the towers. I have yet to read one that talks about the Verticle strength.
    Good luck in your quest.
    The mass of the aircraft was located at its collision point. The upper section was necessarily above the collision point. And if you think that adding 130 tonnes to a building composed of 97000 tonnes of steel as well as other materials would significantly alter its potential energy so as to bring about vertical collapse, then you will find that you are contradicting the NIST report as well as basic intuition.
    I do not see your point regarding vertical/lateral strength. The buildings collapsed through their vertical axis, and so any consideration must examine vertical forces since only those, or a removal of vertical resistance, could bring about a vertical collapse.
    Gordon







    i

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Coming apart like an old suitcase

    New Rules will soon be in affect. Please aquaint yourselves with them.

    http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=7612

    Namaste'

    Lady Mod

Similar Threads

  1. EVERYBODY Saw this Coming....
    By jason zod in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 11:40 PM
  2. Heavy suitcase is better than wrong suitcase
    By evo-llusion in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-20-2012, 12:18 PM
  3. New C-64 Coming Soon
    By mumbles in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 01:55 AM
  4. Is another Ice Age coming?
    By Old Timer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-08-2011, 03:37 AM
  5. The 2nd Coming
    By Knight-mare in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-25-2010, 01:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 9/11, ???, acted, add, added, administration, ain, america, american, another, apart, appears, article, attacks, away, back, bad, basic, basically, bit, body, bolt, bomber, bombing, books, breaking, bring, bro, broke, building, built, buried, bush, called, cannot, card, carefully, case, caused, causing, center, cer, chan, channel, characteristics, cheap, collapse, com, coming, commercial, complex, compu, con, connection, cons, core, counter, crash, damen, day, days, design, did, didn, differences, different, difficult, ding, disaster, dish, documentary, doesn, don, dow, due, easily, eed, ends, engineer, engineering, engineers, episode, events, evidence, expanding, experiment, factor, failed, fall, finally, find, floor, focus, forces, fuel, fully, game, giving, good, gordo, government, grim, ground, had, happen, happened, head, hey, higher, his, hole, hose, house, huge, huma, human, ial, identify, ime, index, individual, interested, ion, ist, its, jet, joke, just, key, kind, king, knock, land, latest, leading, less, lexx, life, lis, logic, lol, loose, luck, make, many, mass, mea, mel, men, mind, model, more, nail, nature, need, nice, note, only, page, par, part, physical, pin, place, planes, point, position, potential, prior, property, prove, proven, pull, quick, quote, read, regarding, remember, removal, report, research, respect, ress, results, run, running, scenario, scientific, section, seem, set, sho, shot, shows, side, simply, soo, specifically, speed, stated, states, steel, story, strength, such, super, support, supported, supporting, talks, the wall, theory, they, thing, thought, time, times, top, total, towers, trade, upper, url, verifiable, view, wall, ward, watch, weight, wrong, years, your, zero

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •