The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2221  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 02, 2010 5:11 pm

BlackBart wrote:
But the distribution has to be determined by gravity which is the same all over the world and doesn't change.


Really? Last I checked it did. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=310

Well whoop dee doo!

Let's devote our attention to trivia. Why not take the effect of the Moon into account also?

Of course there are lots of plans to build skyscrapers at the south pole.

That was such a great demonstration of intellect. So much more important then the distribution of steel that supposedly weakened in a fire in less than one hour.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2222  Postby byofrcs » Dec 02, 2010 5:32 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:.....
My model doesn't need to be set on fire. The top of the north tower was not raised the height of the entire building the way I lifted the top portion of my model. Presumably it was the fire which made the collapse possible.

So what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can collapse? What is stopping any engineering school in the world from doing it by the way?

psik


Analogous to some arguments we've seen on this thread,

House of Cards

I don't see what your problem is; you build a model that shows what happened before the end i.e. the building survives the initial impact, but then you don't continue the simulation to the bitter end.

Why the denial to finish the simulation ? Fear drives procrastination ?.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2223  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 02, 2010 8:24 pm

byofrcs wrote:Analogous to some arguments we've seen on this thread,

House of Cards

Why the denial to finish the simulation ? Fear drives procrastination ?.


Yeah, people that think in analogies are so bad at thinking.

And when a house of cards collapses how much damage is done to the cards? How much of the kinetic energy of the falling portion is used up doing that damage?

It takes 4 washers dropped from 4 inches to crush a single paper loop. That is 0.11 Joules. The amount of energy released from dropping the 4 washers from the height in my video was computed to be enough to crush about 9 single loops and that is what happened. All of the washers in my tower weigh as much as 17 decks of cards and damaged paper loops must be replaced to rebuild the tower. The cards in a house of cards can be used again and again.

So how much energy was required to crush levels in the WTC. But we aren't told the amount of steel that was on each level so we can't know how that amount of energy increased down the building. After NINE YEARS!

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2224  Postby uke2se » Dec 02, 2010 8:42 pm

Seriously, psik...

This

Image

is not the only way to construct buildings. A floor in a skyscraper doesn't have to support every floor above it, or pyramids would be the only way of constructing buildings.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2225  Postby Durro » Dec 02, 2010 9:21 pm

:sherlock:

Not getting personal, are we folks ? Let's keep it focussed on the issues please.
I'll start believing in Astrology the day that all Sagittarians get hit by a bus, as predicted.
User avatar
Durro
RS Donator
 
Posts: 16737
Age: 55
Male

Country: Brisbane, Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2226  Postby econ41 » Dec 03, 2010 2:08 am

psikeyhackr wrote:...So how much energy was required to crush levels in the WTC. But we aren't told the amount of steel that was on each level so we can't know how that amount of energy increased down the building. After NINE YEARS!

psik

psik I expect that the members at "the911forum" have told you what is wrong with your washers and paper loops model when you presented it to them for discussion.

As you must know at this stage of 9/11 discussion your model simply does not relate to the global collapse of WTC1 or WTC2

Your model has the vertical structural elements - the paper loops - resisting the falling weight and failure determined by the crushing of those paper loops. Setting aside scale effects the model bears no resemblance to what happened with the global collapses of the twin towers.

The vertical structural elements in the twin towers - the columns of the outer tube and the core - were not crushed in the global collapse. The falling weight of the "top block" and the accumulating collapse debris loaded the horizontal floors of the office space area AND the horizontal beams of the core. The outer tube columns were bypassed by most of the failing weight - they were only loaded by the failure loads of the outer end floor joist connectors and a bit of friction from falling debris. Similarly the core columns were not axially loaded in the manner they were designed for. The falling top block core section landed horizontal beams in contact with horizontal beams of the lower tower. A far weaker method of contact than properly applied axial loads which the columns were designed for.

So your model is irrelevant just as your original model showing effects of horizontal impact loads was irrelevant several years back.

To be of any assistance a model has to be a valid analogy of the effects it seeks to model. You should remember my "Cracker biscuits, toothpicks and chewing gum" model described by me for DainBramage back on RDNet (when?? Mid 2008 at a guess). That model was a valid analogy for the collapse mechanisms which actually happened at WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2227  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 03, 2010 2:42 am

econ41 wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:...So how much energy was required to crush levels in the WTC. But we aren't told the amount of steel that was on each level so we can't know how that amount of energy increased down the building. After NINE YEARS!

psik

psik I expect that the members at "the911forum" have told you what is wrong with your washers and paper loops model when you presented it to them for discussion.


You can expect whatever you want.

So why don't you provide a link to what you IMPLY happened instead of just giving everyone the impression that I'm hiding something?

So all you can do is CLAIM things happened and CLAIM that is an explanation but you can't provide reasonably accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. When do we ever hear the total weight of a floor assembly specified in NINE YEARS? So any model that demonstrates the unreasonableness of a gravitational collapse caused by less than 15% of the total mass must be accused of being flawed. Otherwise a lot of people have been talking obvious bullshit for NINE YEARS. But then those people pretend that knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level is unimportant also.

So the bottom line is everybody is supposed to not think for themselves and think what they are told no matter how STUPID it is.

Tell Ryan Mackey what is wrong with his "model".

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

psik
Last edited by psikeyhackr on Dec 03, 2010 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2228  Postby econ41 » Dec 03, 2010 3:01 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
econ41 wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:...So how much energy was required to crush levels in the WTC. But we aren't told the amount of steel that was on each level so we can't know how that amount of energy increased down the building. After NINE YEARS!

psik

psik I expect that the members at "the911forum" have told you what is wrong with your washers and paper loops model when you presented it to them for discussion.


So why don't you provide a link to what you IMPLY happened Instead of just giving everyone the impression that I'm hiding something?

psik

I was posting a response to you. If the members of "the911forum" did not tell you what is wrong it matters not. I have told you what is wrong with your recent "washers and paper loops" model. It does not replicate WTC collapse and is of no value in explaining WTC collapse.

The ball is in your court to drop the pointless innuendos and state explicitly (these three will do for starters):

1 what about 9/11 WTC collapse are you trying to illustrate with the washers and paper loops model?

2 you continue to refer to "crushing" of the lower tower. What do you claim was crushed? AND

3 (really wishful thinking this but here goes for the one hundred and umpteenth time) What relevance to your claimed mechanism of collapse is the alleged missing data on weight distribution of concrete and steel?


Note for other members: I have asked psik to explain why the weight distribution is relevant on quite a few previous occasions.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2229  Postby econ41 » Dec 03, 2010 3:07 am

psikeyhackr wrote:...So the bottom line is everybody is supposed to not think for themselves and think what they are told no matter how STUPID it is...
That may be your rule - hence the nonsense models - it is not mine.

psikeyhackr wrote:...Tell Ryan Mackey what is wrong with his "model".

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

psik
I am well aware of the good work that Ryan Mackey has done...

....also some of the limitations in his modelling - two areas in particular being where he takes NIST over-literally and ditto Bazant et al.

but the objective of this thread is for posting members to have discussion.

I have responded to the two substantive bits of your posts - those being your irrelevant model and your references to weight distribution where you fail to show what relevance that data has to the discussion of WTC collapse on 9/11.

Ball in your court therefore.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2230  Postby byofrcs » Dec 03, 2010 3:12 am

psikeyhackr wrote:.....


Here pretty well explains it,

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01 ... -0112.html
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2231  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 03, 2010 4:10 am

econ41 wrote:Note for other members: I have asked psik to explain why the weight distribution is relevant on quite a few previous occasions.


Curious the way he says that. It is like he IMPLIES that I never answered. econ41 is often very suggestive in the way he says things but you can almost never accurately accuse him of lying. :naughty2:

I have posted this on websites before:
On the matter of mass distribution of the towers the NIST says this:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations
Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

I don't understand why they couldn't have that info on the building by fall 2003 though and I certainly don't understand why we don't have it now, SEVEN YEARS of nonsense.

There are 4 reasons for wanting accurate information on distribution of steel and concrete.

1. It is necessary to compute the energy that went into building deflection to compute how much was left to do structural damage.

2. To analyze what the fire could do to the steel. The more steel the more difficult it is to heat.

3. To analyze the collapse in terms of conservation of momentum.

4. To compute the potential evergy which some claim supplied the energy to pulverize the concrete.


All you have to do is Google:

+"Single Impulse Excitations" +psikeyhackr

and you can find places I have mentioned it. I mentioned it on the Richard Dawkins site where econ41 and I have had dealings before. How people can understand physics and not figure out things that obvious is beyond my comprehension. Of course maybe they just CLAIM to understand physics.

Since that post says "SEVEN YEARS" I wrote it two years ago and that government link is probably obsolete.

You can find it here: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR% ... ilings.pdf

Here is a good one:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showpost. ... tcount=215

So if the NIST says it is relevant then how can I possibly be wrong? But then why didn't the NIST get the information and use it in its analysis.

I demonstrated the effect of changing mass and its distribution years ago and posted it on the Dawkins site also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The questions are SO BORING but then the grade school physics of skyscrapers does not change. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and they didn't have electronic computers. So it appears that econ41 can just dismiss from his mind whatever he wants. Right econ211? :mrgreen:

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2232  Postby JQisAwesome » Dec 03, 2010 5:30 am

The biggest flaw in the conspiracy theorists' claim that something other than planes brought down the buildings is this:

Why did they send planes AND bombs?

They could have just as easily blamed the "controlled demolition" on terrorists. Why do both?!
JQisAwesome
 
Name: JQ
Posts: 593

Country: The Best One on Earth
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2233  Postby econ41 » Dec 03, 2010 7:37 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
econ41 wrote:Note for other members: I have asked psik to explain why the weight distribution is relevant on quite a few previous occasions.


Curious the way he says that. It is like he IMPLIES that I never answered....
..sorry I was not explicit. You have never answered the challenge to show why the weight distribution is relevant to the global collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Is that explicit enough? :naughty2:

psikeyhackr wrote:....econ41 is often very suggestive in the way he says things but you can almost never accurately accuse him of lying. :naughty2: ...
I wrote with my usual precision psik. To take it that one step further first get the correct context which is explaining the global collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. You have never shown why the distribution of weight is relevant to explaining those global collapses. Your usual responses in the past have been the same mix of unfocussed innuendo which you employ now.

I will not continue in a one sided discussion. I am prepared to answer any reasoned claim you put.
psikeyhackr wrote:...I have posted this on websites before:...

Yes you have and I have several times pointed out that your modelling addresses the immediate consequences of the aircraft impact. The buildings - both of them - survived that impact AND any relevance your model may have is only to that initial impact UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE RELEVANCE to the global collapse.

The remainder of the post consists of partial truths related to the initial impact written with the inference that those partial truths apply to the collapses. All those inferences are false.

psikeyhackr wrote:...
On the matter of mass distribution of the towers the NIST says this:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations
Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

I don't understand why they couldn't have that info on the building by fall 2003 though and I certainly don't understand why we don't have it now, SEVEN YEARS of nonsense....
Note the context folks. NIST is referring specifically to the initial impact NOT the collapse.

Look at the video folks. It is a good bit of modelling for some purposes. But clearly related to aircraft impact.
psikeyhackr wrote:...I demonstrated the effect of changing mass and its distribution years ago and posted it on the Dawkins site also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

The questions are SO BORING but then the grade school physics of skyscrapers does not change. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and they didn't have electronic computers. So it appears that econ41 can just dismiss from his mind whatever he wants. Right econ211? :mrgreen:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2234  Postby econ41 » Dec 03, 2010 7:45 am

JQisAwesome wrote:The biggest flaw in the conspiracy theorists' claim that something other than planes brought down the buildings is this:

Why did they send planes AND bombs?

They could have just as easily blamed the "controlled demolition" on terrorists. Why do both?!

:thumbup: :thumbup:

too true JQisA.

We bend over backwards to accommodate "truthers" with their focus on fantasy demolitions. The most bizarre probably the last twelve months or so with the "nano-themXte debate".

We get so involved with technical minutia that we tend to forget the "big picture" reasons why there was no demolition:
1 Why do both? - the question you raise;
2 How can you demolish - what is the technical plan to assist natural causes to result in the collapse mechanism which actually happened? - there has never been a viable plan put forward by anyone AFAICS;
3 How can you get away with it without getting caught?

etc etc

Forget the technical details there was no way it could be done without getting caught and why would anyone complicate a simple four aircraft hijack plan with all the problems of a demolition plan?
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2235  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 03, 2010 2:46 pm

..sorry I was not explicit. You have never answered the challenge to show why the weight distribution is relevant to the global collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Is that explicit enough? :naughty2:


What holds a skyscraper up?

The STEEL.

What is the density of steel?

490 pounds/cubic foot.

As you go down the building more weight must be supported by each level. Therefore to increase the strength the amount of steel must be increased. But as soon as you increase the amount of steel on an upper level then all of the levels below must support that increased weight. That is why the CN Tower is shaped the was it is. So the thickness of the steel in the core columns and perimeter columns increases. Consequently the WEIGHT of steel on the LEVELS of the buildings increases. But the designers had to figure out how much weight each LEVEL had to support to determine how much steel to put there. Buildings are constructed bottom up. So the distribution of steel was determined before construction began. So in a collapse the top falling portion must accelerate the mass below and the conservation of momentum comes into the picture. The QUANTITY of mass at such and such velocity hits another QUANTITY of mass. Just like in the plane impact. But in the collapse that increased QUANTITY of steel must be bent broken and dislocated and the energy to do that must come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So the strength of the steel which is affected by the quantity of steel is another factor in the collapse.

Of course anyone that can't figure that out is delusional about their knowledge of physics.

That is what the model is for. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Ryan Mackey.

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

And of course there is the minor detail of the QUANTITY OF STEEL in the fire since it supposedly weakened in such a short time. If that was actually impossible then something else had to be responsible. So why don't we know the tons of stell on every level within five levels of the impacts?

psik

PS - so let's see you build a self-supporting model that CAN COLLAPSE COMPLETELY!
.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2236  Postby uke2se » Dec 03, 2010 3:32 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
As you go down the building more weight must be supported by each level.


False assumption. This is not the case, as I have repeatedly stated, or all buildings would be pyramids.

Each floor is suspended on trusses along vertical columns. None of the floors exert any force on the floor beneath. When collapse began, the floors crashed into each other.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2237  Postby Xaihe » Dec 03, 2010 3:40 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
What holds a skyscraper up?

The STEEL.

Correction: Steel + connections.
You seem to think or imply that the steel is the weakest point in the construction. It should be obvious that it isn't.
Consciousness is make believe. Just think about it.
Xaihe
 
Posts: 877
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2238  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 03, 2010 4:08 pm

Xaihe wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
What holds a skyscraper up?

The STEEL.


Correction: Steel + connections.
You seem to think or imply that the steel is the weakest point in the construction. It should be obvious that it isn't.


I am not responsible for your inferences but I have I had people tell me that the welds are stronger than the rest of the steel. I DON'T KNOW. I don't really care. The MASS of the steel would still have to be accelerated in a gravitational collapse.

How strong are the connections in my paper and loop model? It still arrested completely in two drops with more than 50% still standing even though I made it as weak ass possible. People that BELIEVE collapse was possible in the towers are constantly looking for excuses. So even if the connections were weaker, what does that have to do with not being told the quantity of steel on every level?

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2239  Postby uke2se » Dec 03, 2010 4:44 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
Xaihe wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
What holds a skyscraper up?

The STEEL.


Correction: Steel + connections.
You seem to think or imply that the steel is the weakest point in the construction. It should be obvious that it isn't.


I am not responsible for your inferences but I have I had people tell me that the welds are stronger than the rest of the steel. I DON'T KNOW. I don't really care. The MASS of the steel would still have to be accelerated in a gravitational collapse.

How strong are the connections in my paper and loop model? It still arrested completely in two drops with more than 50% still standing even though I made it as weak ass possible. People that BELIEVE collapse was possible in the towers are constantly looking for excuses. So even if the connections were weaker, what does that have to do with not being told the quantity of steel on every level?

psik


Your model, as econ has shown, is worthless. Do better.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2240  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 03, 2010 5:32 pm

uke2se wrote:Your model, as econ has shown, is worthless. Do better.


TALK IS CHEAP!

Let's see you build a self supporting model that can destroy itself with the top 15% of its own mass and not the House of Cards crap that does not sustain damage.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1451

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests

cron