National Geographic's Professional Hit Job on 9/11 Truth

Let me guess BJ. You know the answer, but don't want to explain it to someone who doesn't understand physics right?

 

I keep linking you to the high rise building experts and engineers to answer all your questions. You don't seem to have a basic understanding of physics. Take a physics class, or just watch Jonathan Cole explain it to you. 911SpeakOut.org

 

So you think a single floor, designed to support it's own weight and objects placed upon it, would resist the load of the upper portion impacting it?

Why do you ignore this question?

 

Because it is such elementary physics that you prove your misunderstanding of physics by even asking it.

 

You keep making this claim, yet you've never shown this claim to be accurate. It's been pointed out that you've made a lot of inaccurate assumptions in order to make this claim. You've never addressed those points. It's been explained to you mathematically that your claim is false. You've never addressed the math.

Why do you keep making the claim?

1. The laws of motion do not "prove it impossible" for a structural system to fail.
2. The laws of motion do not "prove it impossible" for an impacting mass to destroy a structural system of greater total mass.
3. The laws of motion do not "prove it impossible" for a steel column with an area moment of inertia of (X) and an effective length of (Y) to have a critical buckling load.
4. The laws of motion do not "prove it impossible" for a mass accelerated by gravity to exceed the critical buckling load(s) of the column(s) impacted by that mass.
5. The laws of motion do not "prove it impossible" for a structure to fail due to buckled column(s)
6. The laws of motion do not "prove it impossible" for a buckled column to be accelerated by gravity
7. The laws of motion do not "prove it impossible" for an accelerated buckled column to add to the mass of the original impacting mass.

The total sum of your incredulousness stems from the idea that the energy required to buckle the structure in the area of the collapse is greater than the energy supplied by gravity within the same region. Newton's third law of motion does not disprove the possibility that gravity supplies more energy than required.



Look at the high speed imagery of the above impact. The energy of the impact can cause a scale of things to happen depending on the scale of the energy. The impacted structure can deform elastically, and return to its original shape after the energy has been transmitted. The impacted structure can have plastic deformation, and not be able to return to its original shape. Or the impacted structure can be completely overloaded and fracture. Structures that have deformed no longer support the weight they originally supported. They are damaged.

 

If it's so elementary,why do you keep getting it wrong?

 

Answer the question BJ instead of running.

Do you think that a single floor in the towers, designed to hold it's own load and objects placed upon it, would have also resisted the impact from the upper portin falling onto it?

 

What was the mass of the 20 floors compared to the mass of the first floor impacted?...Newton's 3rd, you're doing it wrong.

 

No, he really isn't. The building was in mechanical equilibrium, which means the top section was forbidden to move downwards by Newton's first law. There are only two ways that it could have happened. Either extra downward force was applied sufficient to crush the damaged section through the rest of the building, or the force holding the damaged section in place (93 floors of concrete and steel) was sufficiently structurally compromised that it somehow became unable to support the weight of the damaged 17 floor section.

The impact of the plane and the ensuing fires explains the damaged top section of the north tower, but neither explain its total structural collapse. Any attempt to claim otherwise is an attempt to attribute an effect to an obviously false cause.

 

'forbidden to move'........

 

Your picture proves you do not understand elementary physics. I've never seen a building balanced on a stick. Buildings are not thin sticks holding up a big mass. Your example is a complete different structure than a building. Your example is more like if a comet fell out of the sky and hit a building square on top of it then the building may go into global collapse. I would agree with that. That is not what happened on 9/11.

Buildings are structures engineered to hold the static load and the natural dynamic forces that most likely would act on it. The lower structure was not damaged by the airplane, therefore it would have held the upper portion of the building. Again, one more time, Jonathan Cole. The World Needs Truth

 

Finally, somebody who understands physics.

 

When something is in mechanical equilibrium it means the sum of forces acting upon it are balanced. This is what forbids movement. Go take a basic physics course.

 

Was the building still in mechanical equilibrium when the plane severed/damaged the perimeter columns and core columns? What about after the fires further weakened the remaining structural support components?

I'll ask you the same question I asked BJ.

When the upper section impacted the lower section, explain how the load/force propagated through the lower section's structural components to reach the foundations/bedrock. You and every other truther keep treating the buildings as solid objects. Each structure has component (be it a singular or group of complements) had differing load bearing capacity. Floor truss connections, has a different load bearing capacity than a first floor core column.

This is why the application of Newton's Law is incorrectly used to try and prove the lower section would have resisted the upper section. When a load is applied to a complex structure of many components, it passes through each one to get to the foundations. If the load is too much, they fail. Plain and simple.

The floors (floor truss connections on the perimeter columns and core columns), designed to support their own weight and objects placed upon it, were no match for the load of the descending upper portion.

That is a FACT.

 

Really? is that the case you want to make?....if all things being equal...but they weren't. You assume mechanical equilibrium but, that's not really the truth. The ability of the damaged floor to support the mass of the 20 floors above CHANGED when its steel and structure was compromised due to fires (time + temp). As the fires burned the strength of the steel was CHANGING....the strength of the steel was NOT STATIC....because of this, the load of mass was then transferred to other parts of the structure...not able to keep up with the change. Catastrophic Failure.

Now, what is the mass of 20 floors compared to the mass of the first floor it impacted? How do you feel that single floor would be able to fend off the inertia of the floors impacting its mass?

 

It might be a fact of Fizix but it is not a fact of Physics. It is not even close.

Where is your proof that a core column was severed? Where is your proof that the fires were hot enough to weaken the structure?

 

You don't think there's proof of temperatures hot enough to weaken steel?

 

Clearly it was, because it remained standing for hours afterwards. The plane impact and fires can and most certainly did cause localised damage, but the building itself would have to remain in equilibrium because the impact and fires were way above centre of gravity. Certainly, the damaged section could have slid off to the path of least resistance, but it could not have crushed the path of greatest resistance. That path was over six times heavier and holding the impacting section at rest. Suggesting otherwise obviously contradicts physical law.

Again, this is an irrelevant manipulation of language because any fires only weakened components from the 93rd floor upwards, giving you exactly the same problem in that you're contradicting the laws of physics.

I'm not answering questions based on false premises. How can the top section impact something it is at rest upon, and whose surface areas are identical?

The things you are saying are false and stupid.

 

Office fires are not really hot fires.

There was a explosively hot fire at the moment of the initiation of the collapse which suggests controlled demolition at 4 - 5 seconds in the video.

[video=youtube;dh4r-gHdyPU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU[/video]

 

office fires brought down the all-steel section of the Windsor Tower in Madrid.

- - - Updated - - -

the best architecture and engineering experts disagree with 9-11 Truth.

 

Do you really think this impresses anyone?

The word you're searching for is cantilever, and that's exactly what the building was.

My example is a demonstration of buckling, not a demonstration of the structure of the WTC. In your haste to hand wave, you miss the point that the picture illustrates. A buckled column cannot resist the mass that buckled it. The heavy weight, AND the column itself are free to be accelerated by gravity after the buckling takes place. This is exactly what happened to the structure of the WTC. It was locally buckled, and the locally buckled structures were accelerated by gravity to cause damage to neighboring structures.

And EVERY one of those designs has a threshold of load. You have failed to demonstrate that the collapse of the upper portion of the building did not exceed that threshold. Others have demonstrated mathematically that it was possible for the upper portion to exceed that threshold.

 

What orifice did you pull that out of?

 

Again, black smoke indicates an oxygen starved relatively cool fire. This is not new information. White hot fires are very hot.

 

Thank you for your full on display of the design of the twin towers, the upper section fell through the path of least resistance as the interior of the towers was more than 90% air, it was an office building which required a lot of space. It wasn't a solid object. The bolded part may be the dumbest thing I have ever read. What force would have been at play to move the upper section horizontally? Do you even think? The upper block fell through the path of least resistance as the buildings were mostly air. Why do truthers profess such a knowledge of the physical world whent the concept of gravity escapes them?

You should have given up previously. No laws of physics were violated on 09/11/2001, none.

The buildings were not solid masses they were mostly air. I agree the things you are saying show a complete lack honesty and understanding.

 

Quantumhead makes perfect sense to those of us who do understand building construction and physics. He is exactly right.