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

#2241  Postby Xaihe » Dec 03, 2010 5:36 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


Oh, ok. So it's just the acceleration of the steel. Your mention of bending and breaking the steel got me confused.
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

#2242  Postby uke2se » Dec 03, 2010 6:12 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
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


I don't have to. NIST modeled the collapse. Bazant improved it.

That doesn't alter the fact that your model is worthless for reasons already stated, and that your misunderstanding of building physics makes you unqualified to construct such a model. I'm not qualified either, but I have no pretense to be.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2243  Postby econ41 » Dec 03, 2010 8:20 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.
Remember my challenge to stop being evasive and to talk about the global collapse of WTC1 OR WTC2.

Despite your usual attempt to hide behind false inferences your claim "...The MASS of the steel would still have to be accelerated in a gravitational collapse..." is FALSE for the global collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. That global collapse occurred by the "top block" and accumulating debris of floors falling inside the outer tube. The "outer tube" was not involved in the acceleration you claim by innuendo. The outer tube simply fell. Ditto the core columns.

Yes both outer tube and core columns did accelerate but not in any way related to the central mechanism of collapse. The bit that was accelerating and relevant to the collapse was the top block and the accumulating mass of floor by floor debris (level by level debris in your terminology)

All this was clearly explained to you many times on RDNet as you are fully aware psik.
psikeyhackr wrote:...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....
...which is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the global collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. The model in no way represents the twin towers or how they collapsed.
psikeyhackr wrote:...People that BELIEVE collapse was possible in the towers are constantly looking for excuses....
Sorry the towers collapsed - they are not there - they are gone - collapse was not only possible it actually happened. On 11 Sept 2001.
psikeyhackr wrote:... So even if the connections were weaker, what does that have to do with not being told the quantity of steel on every level?...
It has nothing to do with not being told. But again that is an evasive distraction by inference. The missing link in the logic is your need to show how the alleged missing data is of any relevance to how the global collapse occurred. The ball in your court to show any relevance.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2244  Postby amused » Dec 03, 2010 11:49 pm

Brick wall econ, brick wall.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2245  Postby Miragememories » Dec 03, 2010 11:51 pm

Weaver wrote:
Xaihe wrote:
Miragememories wrote:
Steel framed buildings have been around for over 100 years.

In that time, many massive fires have assaulted steel framed buildings and until 9/11, none
were claimed to have successfully brought about a complete collapse.


And how many of those massive fires were largely unfought and in buildings that also sustained substantial structural damage? It seems to me that those two facts are forgotten or neglected way too often when people try to compare the WTC 7 fires with previous office fires. How can people forget that? Why do people neglect it?

Emphasis mine ...

Because they want to. It makes it much easier to peddle their denialist talking points if they ignore contrary data.

"It seems" says it all!

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 72
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2246  Postby Miragememories » Dec 03, 2010 11:52 pm

uke2se wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
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


I don't have to. NIST modeled the collapse. Bazant improved it.

That doesn't alter the fact that your model is worthless for reasons already stated, and that your misunderstanding of building physics makes you unqualified to construct such a model. I'm not qualified either, but I have no pretense to be.


Theories are not proof.

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 72
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2247  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 04, 2010 12:30 am

uke2se wrote:I don't have to. NIST modeled the collapse. Bazant improved it.

That doesn't alter the fact that your model is worthless for reasons already stated, and that your misunderstanding of building physics makes you unqualified to construct such a model. I'm not qualified either, but I have no pretense to be.


ROFLMAO

Like the physics of buildings is so complicated.

Bazant can't get Newton's 3rd Law correct. My model demonstrates that he is WRONG!

Since the falling portion of my model is crushable unlike Mackey's the bottom gets crushed simultaneously along with the top of the stationary portion. Bazant's crush-down, crush-up is utter rubbish. People that claim to believe his nonsense advertise their stupidity.

When did Bazant build a physical model to demonstrate what he is claiming.

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

#2248  Postby uke2se » Dec 04, 2010 7:40 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
uke2se wrote:I don't have to. NIST modeled the collapse. Bazant improved it.

That doesn't alter the fact that your model is worthless for reasons already stated, and that your misunderstanding of building physics makes you unqualified to construct such a model. I'm not qualified either, but I have no pretense to be.


ROFLMAO

Like the physics of buildings is so complicated.

Bazant can't get Newton's 3rd Law correct. My model demonstrates that he is WRONG!

Since the falling portion of my model is crushable unlike Mackey's the bottom gets crushed simultaneously along with the top of the stationary portion. Bazant's crush-down, crush-up is utter rubbish. People that claim to believe his nonsense advertise their stupidity.

When did Bazant build a physical model to demonstrate what he is claiming.

psik


Your model is worthless for reasons already stated. Your misunderstanding of building physics makes you unqualified to construct such a model. Why do you persist in pushing your model as any sort of proof of anything?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2249  Postby uke2se » Dec 04, 2010 7:42 am

Miragememories wrote:
uke2se wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:

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


I don't have to. NIST modeled the collapse. Bazant improved it.

That doesn't alter the fact that your model is worthless for reasons already stated, and that your misunderstanding of building physics makes you unqualified to construct such a model. I'm not qualified either, but I have no pretense to be.


Theories are not proof.

MM


A theory is the highest form of scientific determination. It doesn't get better than a theory and remain science.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2250  Postby econ41 » Dec 04, 2010 8:56 am

amused wrote:Brick wall econ, brick wall.

Yes, I know. But I do try to give everyone the opportunity to discuss in the proper format. i.e. either they rebut my claims OR they put forward a better explanation of (in this case) the Twin Towers collapses. If a couple more rounds with psikey fail to produce either his rebuttal of my claims OR his explanation which he claims is better than mine I will desist from further engagement. As you will know I rarely pursue side tracks, evasions OR rufous coloured fish of the genus Clupea,

psikey was a long time regular on RDNet and I spent many hours explaining the collapses of WTC1 andWTC2 to him.

He rarely if ever addressed the simple facts of the collapse mechanism which actually occurred on 9/11. If you look at his linked video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q you will see that he made a serious effort at modelling something about the collapses of the Twin Towers. I have many times commended him for his effort. However and sadly it is misdirected. Any examination of psikey's posting history will show that he is strongly focussed - maybe obsessed - with the weight distribution of steel and concrete. The weight distribution is clearly relevant to the oscillations and resonance effects caused by and following the initial impacts. If it does anything it is clear that psikey's model is about the aircraft impact and following effects. It is a long straw to claim that it has anything to do with the collapse of the towers - whether the "initial collapse" OR the "global collapse". Hence my recent challenge to psikey to show relevance if any. I am obviously giving him "benefit of the doubt" because it is a long leap to find relevance of the weight distribution to the two key stages of the actual collapse mechanisms.

psikey and I have been down these tracks many times. I will give him opportunity to actually state a claim OR respond to mine but, as recent posts affirm, we are not likely to see anything more specific than bad analogies, unclear inferences, lots of "ROFLMAOs" or equivalent and claims about physics being simple/reliable/unchanging BUT without any logical connections to any claims or assertions to show what psikey means by the praising of physics - apart from the innuendo that I don't understand physics. For the record I do understand physics and I do understand the physics of the WTC collapses on 9/11 AND I wouldn't care if psikey tried to show me where my claims about WTC collapses are wrong in physics. I'm not holding my breath.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2251  Postby Dudely » Dec 04, 2010 12:38 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
ROFLMAO

Like the physics of buildings is so complicated.


It's complicated enough that it took thousands of years of architecture to figure out how to keep a building taller than a hundred feet or so from falling over.

A common vein throughout claims that the towers could not have fallen due to airplane impact & fire is the assumption that the building is strong. All skyscrapers are relatively weak. The only reason they stand is because of careful and precise designs which distribute the weight ever so carefully. Like a bridge, if you remove or sufficiently weaken just a few pieces the entire structure will fail, since each piece is dependent on the other pieces for its strength.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2252  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 04, 2010 3:33 pm

Dudely wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
ROFLMAO

Like the physics of buildings is so complicated.


It's complicated enough that it took thousands of years of architecture to figure out how to keep a building taller than a hundred feet or so from falling over.


ROFLMAO

Buildings involve stacking stuff on top of other stuff. That means the stuff underneath has to be strong enough to support the weight. So making really tall building requires large quantities of steel therefore the production to steel had to be cheap enough. That did not happen until the late 1800s. So your thousands of years is a bunch of distorted pseudo-intellectual trash.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inve ... capers.htm

But it still leaves the problem of needing to know how the steel was distributed to analyzed the destructions of WTC 1 & 2.

So why aren't EXPERTS like Richard Gage and Steven Jones discussing the grades school physics of the problem? Shouldn't grade school kids today know things that educated scholars did not know hundreds of years ago? Grade school kids all over the world should be laughing at the nation that put men on the Moon for not distributing such simple information.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

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

#2253  Postby amused » Dec 04, 2010 4:22 pm

Dunning-Kruger effect in full glory.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2254  Postby econ41 » Dec 04, 2010 9:36 pm

amused wrote:Dunning-Kruger effect in full glory.

Quite possibly. The lack of meta process skills is not uncommon. In my former life before retirement, when selecting people for management roles, I used to explicitly look for meta process ability. The ability to "think about thinking" or "talk about talking" is an essential skill of a manager as opposed to an administrator. In fact one common explanation of the difference between "administration" and "management" is that admin is about keeping doing things the same way and management is about making changes to do things a better way. And you cannot conceive and implement a "better way" unless you operate in a meta process.

I recently met the limitation in thinking on another forum discussing 9/11 conspiracies. I commented on the implicit tactics of how a person was trying to control debate to suit his implicit (and truther) goal. He responded purely on the "flat ground" of the technical topic and it was not a ploy. It became clear from other posts that he genuinely lacked any skill in the meta level.

So the "Dunning-Kruger effect" is a narrower, more specific example of the same sort of issue. And probably not all that rare on these conspiracy threads.

And, for what it is worth, this post is written in second level meta process... :naughty2: - talking about how we talk about talking. :scratch:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2255  Postby uke2se » Dec 04, 2010 11:52 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
Dudely wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
ROFLMAO

Like the physics of buildings is so complicated.


It's complicated enough that it took thousands of years of architecture to figure out how to keep a building taller than a hundred feet or so from falling over.


ROFLMAO

Buildings involve stacking stuff on top of other stuff.


ROFLMAO no.

It's more complicated than that.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2256  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 05, 2010 3:23 am

uke2se wrote:ROFLMAO no.

It's more complicated than that.


Like it's more complicated than direct coupled complementary symmetry amplifiers.

The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. Transistors weren't invented until December 1947.

But here we are 41 years after the Moon landing and people want to pretend that the distribution of steel isn't important to solving this problem. The stuff on the bottom has to be strong enough to hold the stuff above under static load and in skyscrapers it must also withstand the wind. That is why the core columns just above ground level were thicker than the columns in the basement. The basement columns just had to deal with gravity load. So any supposed collapse must crush supports and accelerate the mass below. So not demanding to know the distribution of mass is TOTAL RUBBISH.

Some people just presume they can talk other people into being more STUPID than themselves.

So build a self supporting model that can crush itself with its top 15%. Until you do that you are doing nothing but blowing HOT AIR.

You didn't mention the steel production from the Bessemer process. Just decided to ignore that complication huh?

http://www.industryinnovation.ca/Skyscrapers.asp

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

#2257  Postby Dudely » Dec 05, 2010 4:54 am

But you're not calculating the bottom because the bottom wasn't involved in the collapse. One floor, and all those above, fell on the floor beneath. After that point global collapse was inevitable since if floor 86 couldn't hold up floor 87+ floor 85 can't hold up floor 87+ AND 86. That's just common sense.

Your premise is utterly flawed.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2258  Postby econ41 » Dec 05, 2010 10:54 am

psikeyhackr wrote:...So build a self supporting model that can crush itself with its top 15%. Until you do that you are doing nothing but blowing HOT AIR...

Dudely wrote:But you're not calculating the bottom because the bottom wasn't involved in the collapse. One floor, and all those above, fell on the floor beneath. After that point global collapse was inevitable since if floor 86 couldn't hold up floor 87+ floor 85 can't hold up floor 87+ AND 86. That's just common sense.

Your premise is utterly flawed.
It is certainly a poor parody of Heiwa. Psikey borrows someone's idea without acknowledgement and even then leaves out half the detail which made Heiwa's claim funny even though it was crazy.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2259  Postby amused » Dec 05, 2010 6:44 pm

If you want to pretend that you are building models with washers that have any relevance to the actual structure, then at least get the basic physics right. A toy 'model' that mimics the actual layout of the structure would not have anything between the washers. Buildings are mostly air because that's where the people inhabit them. Rather, the washers would be supported only at the edges, thus:

Image

The red rods should be made of toothpicks glued end to end to mimic the fragility of the columns since they were made of small parts bolted together. Then drop a wad of washers on whatever level so that it breaks the connection between the washer below and the supporting toothpicks. That wad of washers will break loose the first washer it hits, then those will hit the next one down, and so forth. Unless you use epoxy to glue the washers to the toothpicks, the whole thing will come down in a similar fashion to the collapse of the WTC structures. If it doesn't, the edge connections in the 'model' is too strong to accurately model the actual connection.

Such a toy model would at least come close to depicting the layout of the actual structure, where the floor trusses rested on shelf angles that were supported only at the inside face of the exterior columns and core columns:

Image

The shelf angles in the blue circles were the only thing holding the floors up, and also held the building together. The angles in the red circles were for lateral support to the floor assembly. By your own admission at the CFI forums, you've been shown that picture numerous times, and yet you just don't get it. But you continue to pretend that you have great insight into how buildings are put together. You don't. Such a display of the arrogance of ignorance is otherwise known as Dunning-Kruger effect.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2260  Postby econ41 » Dec 05, 2010 8:19 pm

amused wrote:If you want to pretend that you are building models with washers that have any relevance to the actual structure, then at least get the basic physics right. A toy 'model' that mimics the actual layout of the structure would not have anything between the washers. Buildings are mostly air because that's where the people inhabit them. Rather, the washers would be supported only at the edges......

.....The shelf angles in the blue circles were the only thing holding the floors up, and also held the building together. The angles in the red circles were for lateral support to the floor assembly. By your own admission at the CFI forums, you've been shown that picture numerous times, and yet you just don't get it. But you continue to pretend that you have great insight into how buildings are put together. You don't. Such a display of the arrogance of ignorance is otherwise known as Dunning-Kruger effect.

A good explanatory post amused. :clap: :clap:

The key probably in the phrase "...and yet you just don't get it."

When modelling a structural event the two essential steps are:
1 Understand the event you are modelling; THEN
2 Build a model which mimics that event.

Both of psikey's models seem to have either missed the first step OR grossly misunderstood the event. Neither model shows any understanding of the WTC Twin Towers collapse mechanisms and if you don't understand something you cannot model it. As stated previously his first model was a model of aircraft impact - not collapse - and therefore not relevant to the collapse. The second model, the washers and paper loops was in no way representative of the WTC Collapses. It was structurally "arse about" to put it colloquially in that it focussed on the column strength. The actual collapses of WTC1 and 2 in effect worked on column weakness - not by weakening the columns but by not allowing them to carry full designed loads.

Even in his words psikey keeps insisting on the strength of the columns. The strength of the columns was irrelevant in the actual collapse. The columns were bypassed by the falling mass in the office space area where the floor joist to column connectors were the weak link which failed. In the core the horizontal beams were the weak link.

The reality was directly opposite to the usual truther claim that the buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance. They didn't. They fell through the path of least resistance. And that "least" was very little.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 81
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests

cron