an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

So when the first explosives misfired, there was some structural resistance at some internal pivot point that had bent to cause the tilt due to the missing resistance on one side. Then the other remaining explosives on the level went off, removing this structural pivot point and thus causing the start of the descent of the upper section and ceasing the tilt.

As far as the last part of your sentence, what do you mean the upper section had to be blown to compensate, what do you mean by this? Are you saying there were explosives going off in the upper section as it descended?

 

Then why do you have a problem with wanting to know the center of mass and center of rotation? If what you think is true then the data should only confirm your belief.

All you have to do is watch the videos to see that the bottom of the upper broken portion moved horizontally more than 20 feet. How could fire and gravity do that? So where was the center of mass? If we don't know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level then how can we determine how high it was?

But that is the absurdity of 9/11! How could "scientists" and "structural engineers" spend almost 13 years not even asking questions that simple? Search the Internet for center of mass discussions on the top of the south tower. It was obviously tilted. So they look ridiculous no matter what the truth is.

psik

 

First, do you know the difference between a pivot point/hinge and center of mass of a tilting object? Second, please go back and show me where I asked about where the center of mass was.

 

I didn't say you asked about it. You insist that it is not important.

I did not say the center of mass and center of rotation had to be in the same place.

But if the airliner impact and fire caused the tilt then the pivot point which would be the center of rotation should have been very near the 81st floor where the plane hit. But that video shows it at the 89th floor. The videos show the bottom of the top portion moving horizontally 20+ feet at the 81st floor. Your so called pivot point was not there.

You are arguing for something that the videos show did not happen.

The tilt of the top of the south tower is not explained. At the very least "structural engineers" should have been talking about it within weeks of 9/11. But they didn't and still haven't.

psik

 

Are you even paying attention here?

Here is genericBob's explanation as to why he thinks explosives are more probable than fire-weakened/damaged structural components.

genericBob is saying that he thinks that fire-weakened and impact-damaged structural components would have caused the upper section to tilt and spill it's debris off the side onto the streets below and NOT cause total destruction. Since that didn't happen, he thinks that explosives were used.

I explained to him that the there was a tilt, and that the PIVOT POINT/HINGE that connected the upper section to the lower section failed and gravity took over and pulled everything down.

Why you keep blustering on about center of mass and why I want to know where it was located is beyond me. If you are saying that center of mass and a pivot point/hinge of a tilting object are the same thing, I suggest you go and do some research.

 

You can worship genericBob all you want.

Here is a video of the beginning of the tilt of the south tower. Because the spacing between the exterior columns is known it is easy to tell that side moved in 20+ feet. Where did genericBob explain that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

Where did you?

If it is not explained then we do not know what happened. I am not making any claims about what produced the forces. But we need to know the masses and the motion to compute the forces.

It's called physics. But the so called "experts" should have been explaining it in 2002. The location of the center of mass should have been one of the things already determined.

psik

 

So you want to know why that side moved in 20+ feet? That's your hang up right now?

 

You can believe I am focused on one thing if you want.

We are talking about the motion of the top of the south tower. If it had just tilted at the 81st floor then it would not have moved like that. I already posted the video showing the center of rotation was at the 89th floor.

The motion has never been explained and it cannot be without knowing the center of mass.

9/11 is physics bullsh!t.

psik

 

Argument from fallacy

 

Just to stick my oar in here,
when it comes to explaining why the towers "collapsed"
as they did, in a straight down manner, the loyal opposition
states that Gravity works straight down and so its expected
that the tower(s) should have collapsed straight down.
however in a totally gravity driven "collapse" how is it that
the South Tower had a tipping event, that is part of the building
did not start out falling straight down but tipped, how did that
happen?

 

He named it accurately

 

Is it too much to ask that you expand and explain that comment,
given the post before, it doesn't add up. Please add detail.

 

Because the structural components weakened enough under the stress to start the tipping motion and then that pivot point/hinge failed and gravity took over. Not rocket science.

I have a question for you genericBob. Why do you so vehemently challenge the fire-weakened, gravity driven collapse and claim there is no evidence or explanation that proves it happened, yet you believe that explosives were used to bring the buildings down. Why are you not questioning/challenge the explosives theory like you do the gravity theory? There is even LESS evidence and detailed explanation for the explosives theory. If you WERE after the truth, you'd be questioning both sides right?

 

The fact of complete destruction or at least 99% destruction of the towers & 7, is plenty of evidence of something un-natural going on here, the fact is that buildings simply do NOT "collapse" like this, the Controlled Demolition business is one of very exact science and when that exact science doesn't go exactly right, it results in incomplete demolition of the structure. Therefore, why should anyone expect to see the result that is obtained by careful engineering and preparation, be also the same result obtained by chaotic damage & fires? 99% (or more) demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 and people attribute it to chaotic damage? Not Logical Jim, Not Logical at all....

 

You are starting from a flawed premise.
First: prove the percentage you claim.

 

For the umpteenth time.

What comparative information are you basing this claim on? You are generalizing the uniqueness of WTC1, 2, and 7's design in a BUILDINGS classification and using that generalization to make assumptions that what happens to one BUILDING will happen to all. You can't do that. Engineers would laugh at you.

Please provide me examples that support your claim that "buildings simply do not "collapse" like this. Since your generalizing BUILDINGS, I guess I can include BUILDINGS with wooden internal structure to prove my point right genericBob? They're considered BUILDINGS.

This has been explained to you before. Chaotic fires and damage still affect the structure as a whole. Structures are built to redistribute loads. It was a 208' x 208' area. When the reaming damaged structure eventually failed due to overloading, where did you want the debris to go. You have no knowledge of the structural engineering involved.

If I asked you to debate in an area that I was an expert in and you were not? I sure as hell wouldn't. This is where you are at right now. You have no knowledge of structural engineering yet argue like you know what your talking about.

 

Engineers have spent almost 13 years not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the twin towers.

Did the steel on the 1st level of the north tower have to support more weight than the steel on the 101st level or not? Can you compare the amount of steel on every LEVEL? If not then why not? Engineers have spent a lot of time not asking obvious questions about some simple physics problems regarding 9/11. Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?

Middle school children should spend the next 13 years laughing at them.

What is your basis for knowing what engineers would laugh about?

psik

 

What's my basis?

I worked in two engineering firms in the span of 8 years. I worked directly with structural, electrical, mechanical, and process piping engineers. I was on the on site construction lead for blast furnace relines and oxygen piping installs. Among other things, I designed hydraulic systems, electric arc furnace piping, and water cooling towers. I was on site to perform damage assessment for two disaster sites after plant explosions.

That's just a few things.

What do you bring to the table?

 

1 ea, sentient, earthling, human type.....
all that is necessary.

 

Curious! You didn't actually say you were an engineer and you said nothing about that distribution of steel business that I mentioned first.

CLAIMING that engineers would laugh does not explain why.

What I find curious is that so many engineers are obviously saying nothing about 9/11. Are you saying that any engineers have specifically told you that WTC 1 and 2 should have collapsed?

psik

 

You realize of course that anyone can CLAIM anything on the Internet which is why I talk about things people can verify for themselves. But you choose to talk about what YOU SAY engineers would laugh at.

Pure psychological bullsh!t.

psik

 

So go bring you garbage to an engineer and see what he says. Is this why all the truther organizations cannot get more than 1% of the engineering community to back them up? in 13+ years? Pathetic. If it was such a slam dunk, it would be easy. But you folks go ahead and chalk up the lack of engineering support to people being afraid to step forward. What a crock. The problem is your side has NOTHING.

In any case, point me to any truther paper with math and calculations that shows how explosives created what we saw that day so I can verify it for myself. You have been given FEAs and other data to explain how it WAS possible for planes and fire to do what we saw and you have provided nothing in return.

If it is that impossible for a plane to penetrate the facade like you truthers claim, then why have none of your engineers come up with their own FEAs to show this?

Very telling.

 

You're right! It is curious. As I said above, 13+ years and all your truther organizations can muster is less than 1% of the engineering community.

It's very simple. One thing would bring the "official story" to it's knees. If it's true that the planes should not have been capable of penetrating the perimeter facade like they were shown to do, then why hasn't NOBODY from the truther engineering community come up with there own models/FEAs/calculations to show it?

Can you answer me that?

 

But what are your statistics on the engineers backing up the Official Story?

Thousands of engineers saying NOTHING is not what I call support.

All I call it is COWARDLY!

psik

 

How do you make an FEA without accurate data on the towers? The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Give us the number and tell us where it is in the report.

There were 2,900 perimeter wall panels from the 9th floor to the top. The average weight had to be 9 tons but an engineering magazine from 1970 says the heaviest was 22 tons. So where is the data on the weight and quantity of each grade of panel? That would affect the tons of steel on each LEVEL.

9/11 is a scientific farce because not enough data has been provided to prove anything either way but everyone is supposed to believe the official story. So no matter what the truth is this is a scientific farce that reflects badly on all of the "scientists" and "engineers" who have not been demanding the data to solve it.

psik