Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Patriot911]

Patriot911, serious question. Feel free to not answer it or call me a "fucktard" or something but i'm still curious.

Do you have a background that would make you qualified or an expert in physics, engineering, military, etc. that is relevant to the events of 9/11?

TakeAStepBack says he is a civil (right?) engineer in NYC.

Just curious if you are formally educated, trained, or have experience in these fields.

I have taken advanced physics in college and have a BSCS degree. Does that mean anything to anyone? No. The people who believe me don't need to know I have a degree or have studied the topic and the people who don't believe me aren't going to believe anything else I say. So thanks for wasting everyone's time with silly questions that won't make a bit of difference to anyone else.

As for TakeAShit's claims of being an engineer, all I can say is bullshit. An engineer has to have a strong mathematical and science background in order to understand the physics involved in what they design / work on. Apparently TakeAShit can't even figure out gravity or kinetic energy even when it is explained to him in simple terms.

You've seen the math and science I used. I've shown a source that backs up the math and the science. It isn't that hard to understand and it isn't something that can be faked without inserting false premises like Woods does. There are no premises in my work. It is all straight up. No ifs, ands or buts. Can you find fault with my math or the science behind it? Do you have a hard time understanding where the energy came from in the collapse that TakeAShit can't seem to grasp even though he claims to have a background in the very subject we are talking about? Seriously. I answered your question. Answer this one if you would be so kind.

 

[Gamolon]

Anyone find anything particularly interesting about this photo?

It HAD to be a DEW or something else right? Do these next photos look familiar?

 

[Triton]

The problem is your equations don't align with the actual manner of collapse, you're accounting for resistance when there was none, a progressive collapse is not going to create the same kind of collapse that the towers experienced. All the towers fell too fast, too symmetrically, and had too much energy aerosolizing metal and concrete for this to be the case.

Now we can resume the banter and name calling.

 

[Mr. Jones]

This discussion is leading back to the debate of whether the top part of the towers had enough kinetic energy to overcome the strength of the robust and undamaged lower part, and in the time that they took to collapse.
Zdenek P. Bazant who came up with the crush down crush up theory which has been shown unlikely to have happened within the time of the collapses, even said that 'The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger that sets the upper part in
motion are of course very complicated and their clarification would require large computer simulations."
His theory and calculations are is here-
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

He admits the explanation would be very complicated, yet he had an initial theory and explanation readily available as his first paper
came out on Sept 13, 2001, just 2 days after the attacks.
Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?

I am not a mathematician or an engineer, and I don't pretend to be but these explanations are at the heart of the matter when it comes to figuring out how the towers fell.
The refutation of his work and papers on the towers collapse are here-
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

"The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of
the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the
collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact."
In short the refutation comes up with an energy deficit of
"Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ"

"It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of
end connections, spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands which must then be satisfied."

I'll defer to you "experts" to point out which theory you think is more reasonable. In my admittingly limited math skills, I can only conclude that the smaller top half of the towers, (that used smaller and lighter columns as the height increased) could not have the energy to cause the collapses in the time of under 15- 20 secs, to crush the lower half so thoroughly.

 

[Patriot911]

The problem is your equations don't align with the actual manner of collapse, you're accounting for resistance when there was none, a progressive collapse is not going to create the same kind of collapse that the towers experienced.

What I posted has nothing to do with resistance, the kind of collapse or anything else OTHER THAN the amount of energy generated by the collapse itself. It doesn't matter if the collapse is a progressive, simultanious, natural, controlled demolition, fast, slow or any other adjective you wish to think of. The amount of energy released is still going to be the same. It is not just a good idea.... it is the LAW!

All the towers fell too fast, too symmetrically, and had too much energy aerosolizing metal and concrete for this to be the case.

That is your opinion and nothing more. First off, no metal was "aerosolized". That's just stupid talk. The concrete was pulverized and that happens in collapses regardless of what initiates it. Remember, a controlled demolition only uses explosives to initiate the collapse. All the dust you see in a controlled demolition from the concrete is from the pulverization caused by the energy released in the collapse. TakeAShit and Woods would have you believe 80% of the material vanished or was "aerosolized", but the facts prove them wrong.

 

[Triton]

I didn't even know there was a Scientists for 9/11 truth!

 

[Gamolon]

aerosolizing metal

Proof of this?

 

[Gamolon]

The problem is your equations don't align with the actual manner of collapse, you're accounting for resistance when there was none, a progressive collapse is not going to create the same kind of collapse that the towers experienced. All the towers fell too fast, too symmetrically, and had too much energy aerosolizing metal and concrete for this to be the case.

Now we can resume the banter and name calling.

When that upper "block" started down, what part of the lower did you expect to resist the "block"? The upper "block" tilted so did not fall squarely on the supports below. The upper "block" hit the next concrete floor below. And what supported those concrete floors and their trusses? These did, circled in red.

So you expect those to resist this, circled in red?

 

[Triton]

Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJb-GPtb2I0&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News‬‏[/ame]

 

[Patriot911]

I'll defer to you "experts" to point out which theory you think is more reasonable. In my admittingly limited math skills, I can only conclude that the smaller top half of the towers, (that used smaller and lighter columns as the height increased) could not have the energy to cause the collapses in the time of under 15- 20 secs, to crush the lower half so thoroughly.

That is because you're a dumbshit who refuses to learn.

You point to the "smaller" top half and pretend like it has to destroy the entire lower section at once. That isn't how a collapse happens because loads aren't shifted instantaniously. Local structures fail as the collapse progresses, so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded.

So let's see what kinds of energies we're talking about. Lets use ridiculously unrealistic numbers just so we take that argument off the table. Estimates of the weight of the towers are usually quoted at 500,000 tons each. Lets cut that down to 300,000 tons just so there is no argument that the 500,000 ton estimate is too much.

110 floors in the building. That comes to approximately 2,727 tons per floor or 2.5 million kilograms. Now, let's pretend the top part only falls a meter. That would give the upper half a velocity of 4.43 meters / second. That translates into 24,500,000 Joules or 18,070,271 foot pounds of force at impact PER FLOOR. The North Tower upper section was smaller because the impact was on the 96-98th floors. Lets pretend it was only the 98th floor - 110th floor or 12 floors worth of mass. That gives you 216,843,252 foot pounds of force slamming down on structures designed to only hold up that floor (the trusses) and the core which was supporting 65,448,000 pounds.

So, we know there was more mass than what I calculated above. We know it dropped further than one meter as calculated above. Yet even with the cut down figures, you're dealing with numbers far beyond what the building was designed to hold up.

BTW, I've looked at David Chandler's bullshit and that is all it is. The fact he doesn't take into account the dynamic load and pretends there is only a static load shows he either does not understand the issue or is purposefully obfuscating the issue.

 

[Gamolon]

Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?


YouTube - ‪Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News‬‏

Does this look like the steel was turned to dust? Yes or no.

 

[Patriot911]

Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?


YouTube - ‪Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News‬‏

Yes. Do you ALWAYS believe everything you hear?

Better yet, explain how they removed 1.5 million tons of debris from ground zero if the steel was turned to dust. Now, is it possible SOME steel was ground into small particles? Absolutely. Does your video state how MUCH of the dust sample was steel? No. Just that they saw particles.

 

[Triton]

What does this have to do with the dust clouds created during the collapse? Are you saying the reports of steel being turned to dust are false?

 

[Triton]

What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?

What about WTC 7?

 

[Triton]

Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?


YouTube - ‪Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News‬‏

Yes. Do you ALWAYS believe everything you hear?

Better yet, explain how they removed 1.5 million tons of debris from ground zero if the steel was turned to dust. Now, is it possible SOME steel was ground into small particles? Absolutely. Does your video state how MUCH of the dust sample was steel? No. Just that they saw particles.

Yet, you refer to NIST all the time

 

[Gamolon]

What does this have to do with the dust clouds created during the collapse? Are you saying the reports of steel being turned to dust are false?

Look at your terminology. Turned to dust. Are they basing this on a few particles or much more. I'm sure there were steel particles in the air. Why would you expect different results from a collapse where the building was ripped apart by falling structural components.

Let me ask you this.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?


YouTube - ‪Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News‬‏

Gypsum, plaster, and cement. Some asbestos, and one report of specs of steel. Certainly some metal could be shaved even down to dust size particles. But it wasn't very much.Rub a knife blade against a piece of steel, eventually you will wind up with some dust fragments. All you have to do is think.....

 

[Gamolon]

What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?

What about WTC 7?

Listen at 1:44 of your posted video. What did they say the clouds were mostly comprised of?

 

[eots]

What caused the steel to be turned to dust? Fires from jet fuel?

What about WTC 7?

Listen at 1:44 of your posted video. What did they say the clouds were mostly comprised of?

just admit you where wrong

 

[Patriot911]

Well, if you check out this video at the one minute mark and the two minute mark we are told the steel is turned to dust, are they wrong?


YouTube - ‪Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News‬‏

Yes. Do you ALWAYS believe everything you hear?

Better yet, explain how they removed 1.5 million tons of debris from ground zero if the steel was turned to dust. Now, is it possible SOME steel was ground into small particles? Absolutely. Does your video state how MUCH of the dust sample was steel? No. Just that they saw particles.

Yet, you refer to NIST all the time

The NIST is an organization that is a world renouned expert at structural failure. A news report where all the facts aren't given isn't exactly the same thing, especially when you have to pretend it says more than it does.