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

#2261  Postby uke2se » Dec 05, 2010 11:58 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
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


Like I said earlier, you simply aren't qualified to model the collapse of the WTC, as you keep demonstrating by misunderstanding not only the construction of the WTC, but indeed the construction of all tall buildings. I urge you to listen to what people in this thread are telling you. It's better to admit to yourself you were wrong now than to keep fighting windmills for the rest of your life, right?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2262  Postby the_5th_ape » Dec 06, 2010 8:40 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawHFFo[/youtube]
Thanking God for sparing you in a natural disaster is like
sending a thank-you note to a serial killer for stabbing the family next door

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Best Answer
User avatar
the_5th_ape
 
Posts: 3530
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2263  Postby econ41 » Dec 06, 2010 9:14 am

the_5th_ape wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawHFFo[/youtube]

Another comment by YouTube featuring yet another person who is either an idiot or a liar or possible both. I trust you post this rubbish with some sense of levity the_5th_ape since you never seem to join the debate.

So, for the benefit of other members and lurkers here is a brief comment. You need go no further than 45sec into the video to come across the false premise on which I expect the clown tries to build his case. (I haven't watched further at this stage - it is typical truther crap)

This is the text premise:
yet another truther video wrote:'how can the roof of the towers uniformly accelerate with no "jolts" if it hit or crushed the undamaged structure below?'

Note particularly the "if it hit or crushed" which are stock standard truther lies by inference. The concept of "hit" derived from Chandlers work (and paralleled by Szamboti) presumes that the top bit of building is falling THEN bumps into the bottom bit.

Bullshit. The top bit in reality was never out of contact with the bottom bit to cause the "jolt" that Szamboti, Chandler and their unthinking clones like this Cole claim as their premise.

I won't outline the full development of this error unless someone asks out of genuine interest.

Bottom line and simply stated Szamboti and Chandler (and therefore this Cole) assume demolition has removed bits of column so that the falling top bit of tower passes through space then strikes the bottom tower and that strike should cause a "jolt". True if the premise of a demolition created gap in the column exists.

But there is no jolt. So the correct conclusion is that there was no demolition caused gap in the columns.

So the claim is circular as it stands "if we assume demolition we then progress to prove our assumption was valid i.e. demolition"

However I see the claim as yet another example of self debunking trutherism. Since there was no jolt there was no removal of bits of column therefore no demolition. Both Chandler and Szamboti are prone to rebutting their own claims within the context of those same claims. Laughable or sad? Your choice but pathetic whichever view you take.

...and if anyone really wants a blow by blow destruction of the video just ask. I suppose I would have to watch it but..... :smug: :scratch:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2264  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 07, 2010 3:06 pm

econ41 wrote:
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.


ROFL

More changing the subject. Are you saying Mr. H has a copyright on Newtonian physics? Are you saying he is the first person to think of modeling? Did he ever actually build a model?

I did a search on the name. Yours is the only mention. How many people don't even know who you are talking about. More of your casting aspersions without providing a link.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1449

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2265  Postby uke2se » Dec 07, 2010 3:20 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
econ41 wrote:
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.


ROFL

More changing the subject. Are you saying Mr. H has a copyright on Newtonian physics? Are you saying he is the first person to think of modeling? Did he ever actually build a model?

I did a search on the name. Yours is the only mention. How many people don't even know who you are talking about. More of your casting aspersions without providing a link.

psik


ROFLCOPTERLMAOFBI

Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2266  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 07, 2010 3:38 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, 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.


Your model simply shows how much people are emotionally fixated on the floors outside the core rather than the physical principles involved. Using the paper loops made it possible for me to test the number of washers required to crush the loops under static load. That way I could make the model as weak as possible.

When are we ever told the weight of the floor assemblies?

How could you make the strength of the joints between the washers and the toothpicks in proportion to that weight? How is your substitute for the core similar to the grid that was in the WTC?

My dowel is not similar to the core. It does not participate in the collapse. My model is not of the WTC it is a demonstration of the PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES involved in a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. It also gets heavier toward the bottom because the washers are not all the same thickness. Isn't your toothpick thingy based on the assumption that the washers are all identical. Also the dowel keeps my model from falling over. It is so weak that it won't stay up straight beyond 20 levels. You are welcomed to try to build that toothpick thing and make it stand up. You can't model a collapse if your masses won't stay up. ROFL

You go ahead and try to build that rubbish. It is not my fault that you can't tell the difference between physical principles and a specific case. Ryan Mackey explained them at the beginning of the video. He never tried to implement it though. He would have looked really dumb. People can only talk about what is physically impossible. LOL

It's the 9/11 Religion.

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before 1969.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1449

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2267  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 07, 2010 3:46 pm

uke2se wrote:
ROFLCOPTERLMAOFBI

Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids.


My my, aren't you brilliant. The Egyptians didn't have the Bessemer process to produce steel. Skyscrapers were not built until after that. The pyramids didn't contain much empty space.

The steel at the top of the WTC was 1/4th of an inch thick. At the bottom it was 4 inches thick. Find Lon Waters' WTC modeling site.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1449

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2268  Postby uke2se » Dec 07, 2010 3:52 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
uke2se wrote:
ROFLCOPTERLMAOFBI

Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids.


My my, aren't you brilliant. The Egyptians didn't have the Bessemer process to produce steel. Skyscrapers were not built until after that. The pyramids didn't contain much empty space.

The steel at the top of the WTC was 1/4th of an inch thick. At the bottom it was 4 inches thick. Find Lon Waters' WTC modeling site.

psik


Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids, and the floors don't exert force on the floor beneath. Your model is an adequate representation of the aircraft impact, but not for the collapse, and is thus useless for arguments about the collapse.

Are we done here yet?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2269  Postby byofrcs » Dec 07, 2010 4:28 pm

a) AFAIK the floors were all the same (around 4000 tonnes and could support 1300 tonnes load).
b) the thickness of the steel varied from the ground floor up. Its in the plans AFAIK. Heck it's not like the building was held up by magic pixies for the years before it fell down - d'oh!
c) Vast percentage of the nation that put men on the Moon still doesn't accept the theory of Evolution - lol
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

#2270  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 07, 2010 5:22 pm

uke2se wrote:Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids, and the floors don't exert force on the floor beneath. Your model is an adequate representation of the aircraft impact, but not for the collapse, and is thus useless for arguments about the collapse.

Are we done here yet?


This model has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft impact and Ryan Mackey already explained some of the physics. Bitch at him. LOL

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

Of course he got the falling mass wrong and didn't mention the supports having to get stronger toward that bottom to support more weight.

The laws of physics are eternal. It can't be done until morons and liars can comprehend and admit the obvious.

Duh, how does the steel have to be distributed in a skyscraper? DUH!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_j1jAv1j3U

psik
Last edited by psikeyhackr on Dec 07, 2010 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1449

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2271  Postby GrahamH » Dec 07, 2010 5:38 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, 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.


Yes indeed. Models that crush the supports completely miss the observed collapse mechanism of the WTC towers. The support columns burst outward. The lateral stabilisation of the outer columns was largely from the floor trusses that had relatively weak attachment to the columns. The columns got thicker at the bottom, but the floors were the same all the way up, because the floors did not bear any weight of floors above.

psik's model is worthless.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2272  Postby amused » Dec 07, 2010 6:44 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:... My model is not of the WTC it is a demonstration of the PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES involved in a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. ...

psik


'Nuff said. :lol:
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2273  Postby byofrcs » Dec 07, 2010 7:05 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
uke2se wrote:Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids, and the floors don't exert force on the floor beneath. Your model is an adequate representation of the aircraft impact, but not for the collapse, and is thus useless for arguments about the collapse.

Are we done here yet?


This model has nothing whatsoever to do with the aircraft impact and Ryan Mackey already explained some of the physics. Bitch at him. LOL

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

Of course he got the falling mass wrong and didn't mention the supports having to get stronger toward that bottom to support more weight.

The laws of physics are eternal. It can't be done until morons and liars can comprehend and admit the obvious.

Duh, how does the steel have to be distributed in a skyscraper? DUH!

psik


The first bit has to support the whole lot, and then it reduces as the building goes higher. Do the maths - work out the area needed in steel translating the 500,000 tonnes total building load into Newton/Meter2 load on say 250 Mpa compression yield steel. I say its about 20 square meters at ground level or a block 4.5 x 4.5 would hold up the 500,000 tonnes using such steel. This would be spread over the core and outside columns.
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

#2274  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 07, 2010 7:58 pm

amused wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:... My model is not of the WTC it is a demonstration of the PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES involved in a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. ...

psik


'Nuff said. :lol:


So let's see you build the toothpick model and see if it can collapse completely. Because if it doesn't then all you can do is TALK. The toothpicks are too strong relative to the weight of the washers. I bet 3 toothpicks can support all 3 1/2 pounds of my washers. A single paper loop could not do that.

So until you can build a model that can collapse all you can do is TALK.

And CLAIM to know physics.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1449

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2275  Postby Miragememories » Dec 07, 2010 9:57 pm

uke2se wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
econ41 wrote:
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.


ROFL

More changing the subject. Are you saying Mr. H has a copyright on Newtonian physics? Are you saying he is the first person to think of modeling? Did he ever actually build a model?

I did a search on the name. Yours is the only mention. How many people don't even know who you are talking about. More of your casting aspersions without providing a link.

psik


ROFLCOPTERLMAOFBI

Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids.


Actually since they become structurally stronger as you move from top to bottom, it can be argued that they
are comparable.

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2276  Postby Xaihe » Dec 07, 2010 10:01 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
amused wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:... My model is not of the WTC it is a demonstration of the PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES involved in a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. ...

psik


'Nuff said. :lol:


So let's see you build the toothpick model and see if it can collapse completely. Because if it doesn't then all you can do is TALK. The toothpicks are too strong relative to the weight of the washers. I bet 3 toothpicks can support all 3 1/2 pounds of my washers. A single paper loop could not do that.

So until you can build a model that can collapse all you can do is TALK.

And CLAIM to know physics.

psik


Read again the post you replied to earlier, in particular, this part:

amused wrote: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.

You apparantly missed this point even though it was made several times by different people.

ETA: Why do you want people to make models of physical principles that have nothing to do with the WTC?
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

#2277  Postby econ41 » Dec 07, 2010 11:25 pm

amused wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:... My model is not of the WTC it is a demonstration of the PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES involved in a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. ...

psik


'Nuff said. :lol:

True! :thumbup:

Admitting that he is not modelling WTC is a a significant step. It certainly cuts the ground from under a large proportion of the claims by innuendo. That alone is progress of some sort.

Maybe the next step is to identify what principles of physics it does model.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2278  Postby econ41 » Dec 08, 2010 12:51 am

Miragememories wrote:
uke2se wrote:...Modern buildings aren't built as pyramids.


Actually since they become structurally stronger as you move from top to bottom, it can be argued that they
are comparable.

MM

Too true. Which is one reason that I stay away from half hearted attempts at analogies. They can so easily be twisted.

So, using your true statement that buildings are similar to pyramids in that they are stronger near the bottom could set the scene for multiple posts discussing that aspect. Classic derail/evasion tactics. Discuss anything other than the real or relevant issue and people will probably become so interested in the side trail that they forget what the debate was about.

And the real issue on this occasion, and the issue which psikey spends a lot of time evading, is that the strength of the columns was almost irrelevant to the mechanism of the global collapse of WTRC1 and WTC2. In fact almost as irrelevant as the knowledge of weight distribution of the steel and concrete in the buildings. Some of us have been waiting over three years for psikey to explain why knowledge of weights is relevant to the global collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2279  Postby psikeyhackr » Dec 08, 2010 2:47 am

econ41 wrote:And the real issue on this occasion, and the issue which psikey spends a lot of time evading, is that the strength of the columns was almost irrelevant to the mechanism of the global collapse of WTRC1 and WTC2.


No, you just keep CLAIMING that and expect people to believe it because you say it. I consider it idiotic to even think it.

That stupid toothpick model does not have a core that has to get heavier and stronger all of the way down the structure. Where is the data on the weight of the floor assemblies in the WTC to even get an idea about how strong the connections must be between the washers and the toothpicks in relation to the weight of the washers. I bet he could not even build that thing and make it stand up.

My model won't stand without the dowel but the dowel does not participate in the collapse.

How much steel was in the vicinity of the impact to weaken in less than an hour for the south tower. But that had to be enough steel on the 81st level to support another 29 stories. So how did it weaken in 56 minutes for the collapse to occur. Where is the video showing what happened to the steel in the core?

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1449

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2280  Postby Dudely » Dec 08, 2010 2:52 am

It's a public building built years ago. the weight is available- it was referenced earlier in this thread, and then again on this page or the last.

Why do you need a video of the core? We have a video of the outside showing huge columns of smoke emanating from a gigantic fire. We know the contents of both the building and the planes and we know what happens to steel when subject to such fires. All that's left is to do the math.

The core was not really involved in the collapse anyway. The building fell at the weakest point (the floors) not the strongest (the core). The core fell only after the floors were removed and the outer shell could not keep it held up anymore. You can see this in the video of the collapse- the core stood hundreds of feet above the rubble as it fell and was a few seconds behind it for most of the way.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests