Events similar to 9/11: Pirelli Tower, Empire State Building

Go to your neighborhood steel wholesaler and ask to see a 2" thick piece of steel 36" wide and 60" long. If, after you do that, you still think that I need to provide more proof, then I feel sorry for you because you have no clue about the world in which you live.

 

Obviously by the tipping of the top as it collapsed, they did not all fail at the same time but then, a gif would not show you that.

 

That's right. The perimeter depended on the core.

 

Obviously, you have no clue.

 

Of course not, because I do not believe in your conspiracy theory but instead understand the physics involved.

 

I asked a pretty simple question for an expert and the truthers don't seem to be able to answer it. What is the slenderness ratio of the core?

 

I don't have a theory. What are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

Another stupid question.

 

So stupid you have no idea what the answer is.

Like all other questions requiring some intelligent proof you merely run and say "NIST IS AS FRAUD" not a shred of evidence to prove it of course

 

"What is the slenderness ratio of the core?" Is a very stupid question. And no, I don't know or care what the answer is.

 

so stoopid no one will dignify it except OSHuggers because they dont realize how stoopid it is or they would not have asked in the first place.

 

Isn't it funny that if a truther doesn't know the answer, it's the question that's stupid?

The truthers seems to be positive that the core could remain standing on its own. How could they know this without calculating the slenderness ratio of the core?

Slenderness is an important factor in determining whether a column will stand on its own, or whether it will be unstable, and buckle.

The entire tower had a slenderness ratio of 1:7. What was the slenderness ratio of the core? It's really a very simple question.

Also, I remind the truthers of the other question I asked. What is the "force that counteracts gravity". At least one truther here seems to think that that force is a column. I asked for them to explain, and received no answer. I was told this is grade school physics stuff. Which truther is going to step up to the plate and educate me? I'm really interested to know, because *I* was taught that a force has a magnitude and a direction. To calculate a force, one requires mass and an acceleration. What is the acceleration of a column? Students of Newton are dying to know.

 

Jeremy we are not in kindergarten. Your question is so stupid, and unmeasurable, that no one cares. The Z braces and the core columns did not buckle. They were heavily braced. They were 16" x 36" x 2" thick steel columns. Tell your problems to Jesus. We are not morons.

 

It's so stupid that you can't answer it. Gotcha.

You keep repeating numbers as if you know what they mean. It's clear you don't.

What is the area moment of inertia of that column you just posted?

 

What is so stupid is that you think your questions about the buildings are relevant. 9/11 was an inside job has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet you keep asking dumb questions about the building collapses like you are relevant. You are at least 5 years behind the truth movement.

 

Why don't the people who say the north tower could collapse just build a physical model and demonstrate it?

Look at the model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB008RAluyg

The model appears at 2:45.

They didn't have electronic computers to obfuscate things in 1940.

Structural engineering was being done for centuries before calculus was even invented. Fangbeer will just keep coming up with hoops for you to jump through forever.

So why not just model it and demonstrate the collapse and be done with it? Why let it keep dragging on for longer than 12 years? Of course if you can't or won't jump through his hoops then that proves you must be stupid and that he has "superior" intelligence and must be correct. More wasting of everybody's time so everybody gets bored and the problem can fade away.

But if he is correct then why doesn't he just do a model. Isn't experimentation SCIENTIFIC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Of course that Tacoma Narrows Bridge model is 54 feet long at 1:200th scale. Today 3-D printers should be able to produce parts 2 ft by 2 ft so each level of the WTC would be 1.5 inches tall. A 1:100th scale model would be 13.7 feet tall. Not much compared to the Tacoma problem, and they didn't have 3-D printers. They had to do it by hand.

But the distribution of mass would still have to be correct. Funny how no one insists on knowing reasonably accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers. That can't possibly be as important as the slenderness ratio of the core. I mean the NIST said the core only supported 53% of the building's weight.

9/11 is getting to be a real scientific joke. Can't solve a skyscraper problem when the Empire State Building is 82 years old and designed without electronic computers but the nation that put men on the Moon doesn't even talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers.

psik

 

force is a column? No one said that.

sounds more like a comprehension problem to me.

so you know what the whole building was but not the core?



there is a picture of the core, see if you can cipher it we will check your answer.

So you think the core is a 1" by 1" tube thats a 1000ft tall is that it?

 

you need to dig deep and get a clue.

he said standing, which has NOTHING to do with fang applying rotational or lateral forces.

Do you know what the word stand means?

I can tell you that it does not mean surviving a nuclear shock wave or 160mph winds.

SSDD you want to waltz this down red herring alley.

 

It's not my fault you don't understand the concepts I'm talking about. Although I was lead to believe that you learned all this in your physics class. This is elementary stuff, right? You're positive that z braces held up the column, but you haven't the slightest clue about the mathematics that describe buckling.


How about that answer on the force that counteracts gravity?

 

I'm just looking for the tread bump. Every time someone new looks at the evidence, then a liar dies inside. The more liars that die the more the truthers win. Obviously, office fires can not bring down WTC Towers or WTC building 7. It was impossible.

 

Well now. That's a lie.

I asked what the force was, and I was told it was the columns. I was told this by someone with a merit badge in physics and a long pedigree of building things, so I'm patiently waiting for an explanation of how columns are a force.

Can this be considered more evidence that truthers hear things that no one else hears? The only comprehension issue here is among the people who think this problem can be solved by the high school physics lessons that they apparently slept through.

I didn't tell you what I thought. I asked you a simple question that you can't seem to answer.

 

Do you really believe that the core columns were unsupported for 1,776 feet? That they buckled because the Z support was not enough? What do you think the symbolic value is for "1776" feet?

 

You not only slept through physics class you were wide awake in psychology. You fail in physics and excel in cointelpro.

 

This is one of the most dishonest posts I have ever read on the Internet. False claims.

 

Is that all you got? Can't back up your claims can you? Why am I not surprised?

MIT has open coursework in structural mechanics. Heck, there's plenty of free youtube video's that explain the principals I'm talking about.

Here's a good one:

[video=youtube;wrdO8hPJGyg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrdO8hPJGyg[/video]

 

Oh hey look. More empty claims.

Truthers always want to trade on their own credibility; on their own self professed expertise. (which usually consists of talking about things children are supposed to know)

Don't keep telling me you're an expert.

I obviously don't believe you.

Show me.

Show me you know what you're talking about.