The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

You seem more than eager to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the same few things.

I don't find this venue conducive to a technical discussion.

I built a physical model that does not collapse and provided sufficient information for anyone that cares to to duplicate it. You provided a computer model with 1000 m/s.

I can't help it if you think I am the one with the problem.

I pointed out that Gregory Urich has 19 ton perimeter wall panels when an article from 1970 says the heaviest was 22 tons. But doing a lineaR extrapolation with 22 tons results in negative weight at the top so most likely the distribution was not linear. But I'm the one at fault with that too and get beaten with a "red herring".

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/psike ... -t462.html



Almost TEN YEARS after the event and Official Sources in the United States can't provide accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete on buildings designed before the Moon landing.

Refuse to BELIEVE stupid bullshit and you're the one with the problem. YEAH RIGHT!

Newtonian physics goes on and on FOREVER!

psik

[Kat Dorman]

No PM, no discussion. Period. Talk to the wall.

[Weaver]

The washers and paper loops cannot do what physics cannot do.

Read that again, Psik - he's right.

Are you saying my paper loops don't support their static load?

Nope, nobody is saying that

Didn't my washers provide that static load?

Yes, they did

Wasn't supporting the static what the columns in the WTC did?

psik

Not in the same way your paper loops did.
The columns supported the static load of the entire structure - but each floor (the washers, in the case of your model) was supported via the brackets. When those failed (through fire weakness, added weight load, or whatever) the columns were bypassed.

This is what you don't get, and why your model is worthless when compared to the WTC. In your model, the elements representing the "columns" gets crushed. In the real world, the WTC columns weren't crushed, they were bypassed.

So while Kat's computer models may only address certain elements of the WTC collapse, rather than the entirety, and may use certain starting factors to show absurdities in claims, that doesn't make them any less relevant than your entirely worthless model.

And don't reply with "you can't make a supporting model that collapses" - because I can, I have posted here what such a model would look like, I just can't be bothered to waste my time proving something that is already well established - especially since I have no doubt at all that were I to construct such a demonstration you would just cherry-pick minor elements (like, I don't know, not having proper scale with the weight of the "floors" because "nobody has ever provided the amount of steel and concrete" ...) rather than admit you are totally wrong.

[Kat Dorman]

The guy attempts to quote me but quotes himself, doesn't notice, then goes on to argue with himself! What can I say?

[Kat Dorman]

Wasn't supporting the static what the columns in the WTC did?

psik

Not in the same way your paper loops did.
The columns supported the static load of the entire structure - but each floor (the washers, in the case of your model) was supported via the brackets. When those failed (through fire weakness, added weight load, or whatever) the columns were bypassed.

Absolutely true and this is the overriding consideration. If there was not full involvement of supports in crushing, and there wasn't, a model which requires full involvement is not expected to act in accordance with the real collapses. Both psikeyhackr's model and the model Bazant used are full accretion crushing. Because of this, psikeyhackr can counter that Bazant's model must also be worthless if this is the only discriminator. It's necessary to dig one layer deeper to distinguish between the two and understand how one successfully demonstrates the intended principle while the other completely fails to demonstrate anything of value.

As noted above, "a model which requires full involvement is not expected to act in accordance with the real collapses" but, if such a model does show some commonality with the real collapses, it may be useful and interesting to understand why it does. Bazant's intent was to examine the extreme limiting case of all vertical supports crushed under ideal axial loading to see if collapse was the result, given certain initial conditions. Indeed, collapse was the result, and by a wide margin. One can argue whether all of the assumptions were really conservative towards survival but it's apparent more extreme scenarios could be constructed. Doesn't matter; the scenario Bazant used was heavily biased towards survival compared to the actual collapse mode which you described.

Yet it collapsed.

The Bazant model had a static factor of safety greater than psikeyhackr's model, approximately 250%. But it also incorporated the well-established properties of steel columns buckling under an axial load and, because of that, arrived at a valid result of total collapse. Steel columns need only be compressed axially to a few percent of their unloaded length before they are a mere fraction of their original maximum static capacity. Paper loops, on the other hand, hover very close to their original static capacity during the early phase of crush, then likely ramp UP in capacity when approaching full compression unless the loop disconnects.

Energy dissipated in crushing is average force (capacity) times distance crushed. "As weak as possible" statically is not the determining factor, since the average force can be much higher than much stronger supports which fail decisively over a relatively small displacement.

This is what you don't get, and why your model is worthless when compared to the WTC.

psikeyhackr did an excellent model of an automobile crumple zone. Exactly the opposite of a structure which would progressively collapse. He built something which could barely stand yet absorbed impact kinetic energy with tremendous efficiency. Worthless when compared to the WTC.

[psikeyhackr]

Absolutely true and this is the overriding consideration. If there was not full involvement of supports in crushing, and there wasn't, a model which requires full involvement is not expected to act in accordance with the real collapses. Both psikeyhackr's model and the model Bazant used are full accretion crushing. Because of this, psikeyhackr can counter that Bazant's model must also be worthless if this is the only discriminator. It's necessary to dig one layer deeper to distinguish between the two and understand how one successfully demonstrates the intended principle while the other completely fails to demonstrate anything of value.

Bazant's model is worthless because it violates Newton's 3rd Law with the upper block remaining intact while the lower one is crushed even though the lower one must be stronger and heavier. The paper loops in my falling portion get crushed simultaneously thus absorbing some of its own kinetic energy.

So where is the tube-in-tube model that demonstrates the core would come down? If the floors fell and the core remained intact you would say that was wrong. So where is your physical model that did what the towers supposedly did?

If the strength of the core connections to the floor were the same all of the way down the building doesn't that mean they were getting weaker relative to the core because the core must have been getting stronger to support more weight? That is part of the problem with trying to make a realistic tube-in-tube model.

My washers are not to represent floors. The mass of the floors outside the core did not increase down the building. It was the columns and probably the horizontal beams in the core.

psikeyhackr did an excellent model of an automobile crumple zone. Exactly the opposite of a structure which would progressively collapse. He built something which could barely stand yet absorbed impact kinetic energy with tremendous efficiency. Worthless when compared to the WTC.

Yeah, you need to come up with rhetorical BS since you can't make any self supporting structure completely collapse.

So that is what 9/11 has to be when people don't even demand accurate data on the structure.

The physics profession has made a farce of itself. Like we are supposed to pay attention to what they say about Black Holes and the Big Bang when they don't demand the data to resolve this trivia.

psik

[Alemen0ch]

Sorry, I am new here and I was not sure whether to create a new thread or to simply post in the "Obligatory 9/11" or to create one of my own. Anyways, I admit that so far based on many videos and sources I've looked online, I am a "conspiracy theorist" in this regard and I believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the government, but I have admittedly not talked to any "skeptics" knowledgeable of the subject yet so perhaps this might be a good place. I simply want to get down to the truth. I am particularly "rooting" or "biased" for any one view or another. So, I simply challenge the skeptics on this board who do not believe that 9.11 was an inside job to explain to me some of the following pieces of information that I have gathered:

1) Why, after numerous lawsuits, did the Pentagon wait 6 years to release 2 seconds of surveillance footage? Why did they defy every court order to do so? And why was there no plane visible in the video footage?

2) How can building #7, which was designed to withstand large fires and 7.0 earthquakes get demolished by a mere office fire?

3) How come the white house rejected reports from the CIA and foreign intel agencies such as those in the UK, France, Germany and Russia that said there was going to be a plot involving the use of planes on US soil?

4) How come Donald Rumsfeld said that they shot down the plane that was supposedly going to hit the pentagon and one commissioner said a missile hit the pentagon?

5) How come the owner of the one of the buildings, Larry Silverstein said to "pull it"?

6) Why didn't George Bush testify before congress and why did it take years for Condoleezza Rice before she testified?

I challenge anyone here to provide me with coherent answers to these questions. Thank you.

[Kat Dorman]

Bazant's model does not violate Newton's 3rd law.

[HughMcB]

!	GENERAL MODNOTE Threads merged.

[Weaver]

Sorry, I am new here and I was not sure whether to create a new thread or to simply post in the "Obligatory 9/11" or to create one of my own. Anyways, I admit that so far based on many videos and sources I've looked online, I am a "conspiracy theorist" in this regard and I believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the government, but I have admittedly not talked to any "skeptics" knowledgeable of the subject yet so perhaps this might be a good place. I simply want to get down to the truth. I am particularly "rooting" or "biased" for any one view or another. So, I simply challenge the skeptics on this board who do not believe that 9.11 was an inside job to explain to me some of the following pieces of information that I have gathered:

1) Why, after numerous lawsuits, did the Pentagon wait 6 years to release 2 seconds of surveillance footage? Why did they defy every court order to do so? And why was there no plane visible in the video footage?

2) How can building #7, which was designed to withstand large fires and 7.0 earthquakes get demolished by a mere office fire?

3) How come the white house rejected reports from the CIA and foreign intel agencies such as those in the UK, France, Germany and Russia that said there was going to be a plot involving the use of planes on US soil?

4) How come Donald Rumsfeld said that they shot down the plane that was supposedly going to hit the pentagon and one commissioner said a missile hit the pentagon?

5) How come the owner of the one of the buildings, Larry Silverstein said to "pull it"?

6) Why didn't George Bush testify before congress and why did it take years for Condoleezza Rice before she testified?

I challenge anyone here to provide me with coherent answers to these questions. Thank you.

Please provide reputable sources for all these claims so they can be evaluated and addressed.

[Jumbo]

1) Why, after numerous lawsuits, did the Pentagon wait 6 years to release 2 seconds of surveillance footage? Why did they defy every court order to do so? And why was there no plane visible in the video footage?

No idea about the lawsuits but the cameras were not taking many frames per second. The airliner will traverse the area of the frame very quickly so it would be a surprise to capture it in any given frame.

2) How can building #7, which was designed to withstand large fires and 7.0 earthquakes get demolished by a mere office fire?

Getting hit by great big chunks of other buildings which removed parts of the load bearing structure probably did the trick there.

3) How come the white house rejected reports from the CIA and foreign intel agencies such as those in the UK, France, Germany and Russia that said there was going to be a plot involving the use of planes on US soil?

The White House probably gets told vast amounts of information about myriad plots every day of the week from a huge range of sources. That it rejects some of them should not be surprising. The reasons could range from distrust of the sources to the information being simply too vague to act upon even if you wanted to.

4) How come Donald Rumsfeld said that they shot down the plane that was supposedly going to hit the pentagon and one commissioner said a missile hit the pentagon?

Not everybody gets things right all the time. People may make statements based upon limited/incomplete information. Someone making a statement that is incorrect does not automatically mean there is deception involved.

5) How come the owner of the one of the buildings, Larry Silverstein said to "pull it"?

He meant pull the firefighters out and leave the building to its fate.

6) Why didn't George Bush testify before congress and why did it take years for Condoleezza Rice before she testified?

It would require preparation of specific question and for there to be some useful outcome from any answers before there is any point taking testimony. In addition it would require there to be a reasonable chance that the people being questioned could given any answers. Answers may not be forthcoming for a variety of legitimate reasons.

[amok]

I looked up this particular thread because I had three unusual and coincidental experiences today.

1) I ran into an old acquaintance who I hadn't seen for a few years, and the conversation soon got back to this very topic despite all my efforts. I like this person, as a person, but I simply don't know how to deal with what I consider an obsession and mental problem. Considering he's had to change major parts of his scenario since the last time we met, it was both fascinating and painful. Bush was still the U.S. president (last time we talked) with the election looming, and he was sure, then, there would be another "false flag" event that would result in the election being cancelled. His new theory is sort of mishmash of Obama's election being engineered by the very cabal that hates everyone except rich white guys and Obama being their puppet, with an added dash of him not even BEING black. What?!!! The "interment/extermination camps" for dissenters in the U.S. are still being prepared, by the way.

2) Creepily, I also went into the washroom of a coffeeshop I go to a few times week, and someone has put a new and vibrant "911 Was An Inside Job" graffiti in one of the stalls. It was jarring after talking to my friend. I haven't seen such a declaration in years (I mean a new one, some of the old ones are still around, of course, here and there).

3) My lazy summertime reading is always easy-reading mysteries/thrillers, and one of the stories I'm reading cites something called "Operation Northwoods." I wasn't quite sure if the author used a real-life event or if it was total fiction, so I looked it up. It's real. Good grief. No wonder the conspiracy theorists tend to run amok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[amok]

Sorry. Double post.

[CdesignProponentsist]

2) How can building #7, which was designed to withstand large fires and 7.0 earthquakes get demolished by a mere office fire?

Getting hit by great big chunks of other buildings which removed parts of the load bearing structure probably did the trick there.

Actually it has already been shown that there were major fuel lines and gas generators about 3 floors up that caused the weakening of the steel supports. It may have been designed to withstand earthquakes (citation needed) but it was poorly designed for massive fuel fires, just as the towers themselves.

[psikeyhackr]

Bazant's model does not violate Newton's 3rd law.

You CLAIMED it so it MUST BE TRUE!!! I am so impressed.

Either Greening is attempting to deceive for his own purposes or he is unable to understand the principles involved in Newton’s third law. Either way his publications must be regarded as untrustworthy. It also follows that the work of Bazant must be regarded in a similar fashion, as they were co-authors in a particularly controversial paper.

http://www.crono911.net/docs/Bazant2007.pdf

Where these people find the time and funding to produce such complex arguments is a mystery, but they continue to do so. You don’t have to read far into this paper to find it is unsatisfactory. In the Abstract we find the statement that the resisting forces in the first few seconds are negligible. It is perfectly clear, and very well illustrated by Chandler’s work, that the resisting force was about one third of the mass of the falling top portion and hence about 10% of the design strength of the columns.

http://norcaltruth.org/2009/05/15/newto ... pplicable/

Why were the paper loops of my falling mass crushed? Isn't Bazant saying that the upper block remained intact while it crushed the lower block? Didn't lower levels have to be stronger and therefore heavier to support their greater static loads?

Buy a couple of boxes of Capt. Crunch. Hold them at arms length and slam them together end to end as hard as you can. Does one remain intact while the other is crushed? Repeat as many times as you like.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Not in the same way your paper loops did.
The columns supported the static load of the entire structure - but each floor (the washers, in the case of your model) was supported via the brackets. When those failed (through fire weakness, added weight load, or whatever) the columns were bypassed.

We all know my model is not a tube-in-tube design. I have admitted that many times.

So what is stopping you from building a tube-in-tube designe that can completely collapse if you claim that is why the WTC did?

How much weight was in the core relative to the floor assembly. Didn't that change all of the way down the building as the steel in the core got thicker? So how can you build and accurate tube-in-tube model without that data on the towers?

My washers are not intended to represent floors. I am not responsible for the analogies that you create in your head. They are just mass that must be supported and accelerated from above in a gravitational collapse. Ryan Mackey explained the model at the beginning of the video. But his falling mass did not have the same structure as the stationary portion so his falling mass could not absorb some of its own energy.

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

psik

[Weaver]

Yes, Psikey, I understand your model completely - and I agree (with you, apparently, from what you wrote above) that it has absolutely no bearing on the WTC collapse.

The only things stopping me from building the model I described quite a while back are available free time to spend on silliness and a conviction that anything I produce will change anyone's mind at all. I don't have the time to waste proving something that the experts in the field all agree happened, and I don't think that even if I did it would matter one little bit to debates such as this.

[Kat Dorman]

No private message yet. psikeyhackr, why do you insist on keeping this public? You say this is all about ego and winning for me; I'm not spamming hundreds of forums with copy and paste posts.

All the same things covered countless times already. Around and around in circles goes the hamster wheel. Here's one more post I'll write which will be totally ignored.

Bazant's model does not violate Newton's 3rd law.

You CLAIMED it so it MUST BE TRUE!!! I am so impressed.

I linked to an explanation, which you conveniently stripped out of the quote. This is the original quote:

Bazant's model does not violate Newton's 3rd law.

Referring to this passage in particular:

At the time of first impact, Bazant assumes an already existing debris zone consisting only of the first crushed story. He further assumes this failed story has a linearly varying momentum density between the boundaries given by the underlying and overlying stories as it is crushed, which means it is effectively moving at half the upper block speed at first collision.

You might argue that this is an unrealistic assumption; I have. But his analysis is correct within the framework of his assumptions and there is no violation of Newton's third.

At the time of first impact in Bazant's analyis, there is a compressed layer of one story already in motion - the debris zone. You don't have that in your model, neither do I have it any of my models. That's why almost none of the trials I've done have been exclusive crush down, yet Bazant's was exclusively crush down. It's really that simple.

[Kat Dorman]

As for the bit about Newton's third law... before touching on Greening, let me just say Chandler is an [self-censored]. While he is correct in his assertion that Newton's third law is always applicable, it's about the only thing he's ever gotten correct in all the public statements he's made.

Where Chandler goes wrong with the third law is this:

1) He assumes a rigid, non-deformable upper block.
2) He believes the lower block exerts a constant upward force.
3) He takes Bazant's type of scenario literally and expects perfect axially aligned impacts.

A deformable body satisifies Newton's third law at every point in the material, yet force applied at one end of a deformable object need not be experienced equally at the other end. ONLY a rigid body will do that. If you push on one end of a rope, is that same force transmitted out the other end? Of course not. Newton's third law applies yet force at one end does not produce the same force at the other end.

Chandler measures (using some of the shittiest video measurement technique I've seen anywhere) descent at the roofline and assumes this represents the motion of the entire upper block as an integral RIGID unit. He then determines that the 'force' being applied to the upper block is approximately one-third of the static load. Even the lousiest of measurements will show this acceleration, as his does. He then totally ignores the distinction between time-averaged force and instantaneous force, rather odd for a so-called physicist. As a result, he doesn't understand that his crude six samples per second is insufficient to detect brief transient jolts, if jolts of large magnitude were even expected. They are not.

There are jolts. And they are pretty big. He just can't see them with his ham-fisted methods. But he isn't looking for jolts, even though his colleague Tony Szamboti was and used his data to try and find them. I get the impression Chandler never even read Szamboti's The Missing Jolt, which I find quite amazing and humorous, since it effectively debunks Chandler's nonsense. Szamboti at least understands the columns cannot and do not provide peak static capacity over the full range of compaction, and is looking for NINETY-MILLISECOND jolts.

Chandler, on the other hand, expects to see full peak static resistance applied continuously to the upper block over the entire descent. That is, if the peak static capacity were 3x the imposed static load, then the upper block should be decelerating continuously at 2g until it comes to a stop. In reality, the columns - even in a perfect axial strike - would average no more than about 15% peak static capacity over > 90% of the compaction travel. The AVERAGE FORCE over descent is MUCH LESS than peak static capacity.

Chandler weaves these three errors into a mangled tale of pseudophysics. He entertains no criticism, and never debates his findings.

[Kat Dorman]

Greening admitted his error about Newton's 3rd law being inapplicable:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153-30.html#p2786

Well, I apologize to one and all for adding confusion to confusion, ...... so here I try to redeem myself with another e-mail to Chandler:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David:

Well it looks like no one likes this particular comment I made about your video:

“I would say that Chandler's slight of hand is the implied notion that Newton's 3rd Law is universally applicable, even to a collapsing building. The fact is that when a building is collapsing by multiple floor failures the reaction force obviously fails to balance the downward force because the yield strength of the failing columns is being exceeded.”

I guess I will admit that this statement isn't very clear or, indeed, very accurate! What I was trying to say was that Chandler’s 3rd Law argument is not very helpful in the context of a collapsing building.

Greening admitted his error very early on in the email conversation between himself and Chandler. Neither Chandler nor any of his supporters (like the idiot you link to above) have ever published Frank's mea culpa in that exchange. Quite the opposite, it has been deliberately omitted.

Greening was wrong in saying the third law doesn't apply, and he admitted it. However, his criticism of Chandler's so-called 'work' is quite valid. His argument all along was basically that Chandler was wrong on the three points I listed above. There is no reason to expect constant deceleration at 2g, whereas there is good reason to expect initial accelerations at 60-70% of g.

Either Greening is attempting to deceive for his own purposes or he is unable to understand the principles involved in Newton’s third law. Either way his publications must be regarded as untrustworthy. It also follows that the work of Bazant must be regarded in a similar fashion, as they were co-authors in a particularly controversial paper.

http://www.crono911.net/docs/Bazant2007.pdf

Specious reasoning. This is like saying that, because David Chandler doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, Tony Szamboti must also be incompetent.

Bazant's mechanical analysis is entirely different than Greening's discrete analysis, though the results are similar. Both assume a rigid block and that is an unrealistic assumption. So what? They're idealized analyses. I've carried it further and I get bidirectional crush just like you do but it still collapses to completion. The reason yours doesn't has nothing to do with bidirectional crushing and everything with having supports which are - DYNAMICALLY - too strong.