The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Agi Hammerthief]

beats "you are an idiot" any day.

That would be regarded as an insult and personal attack and justification for banning.

my point exactely

It's not your fault the FUA leaves this loophole

[tolman]

Psi, at best, even if you had managed to write something in half-decent English which made sense, you would simply have stated something obvious which would impress no-one, contribute nothing, and which wouldn't need saying.

It is not my fault that you do not have the capacity to figure out the obvious and then try to demonstrate that you are intelligent.

The literal meaning of what you wrote was that you thought you could make an element stronger by piling one element on top of another.

Even doing your work for you and re-interpreting 'stack' as 'tapering 33-level pyramid with 33x3 on the bottom layer', what you said is not worth saying, since it contains no meaningful insight.

I'm sure pretty much everyone here is capable of imagining your paper model scaled up, it's just that there would be no point scaling it up since it would just be a larger-scale version of a bad model, possibly incorporating the odd extra failure mode.
Only a moron would seem likely to be impressed by a crap model simply as a result of it being big.

If you actually managed to make a new model (of any size) along your past lines which did have every floor balanced close to the edge of collapse at the slightest overload, whether or not it was vulnerable to collapse progressing that would still say nothing about the WTC since the WTC is a fundamentally different structure.

I'm sure that most sane people would think it better to build no model than one which utterly failed to model the structure one is claiming to be interested in.

[psikeyhackr]

The literal meaning of what you wrote was that you thought you could make an element stronger by piling one element on top of another.

No, you just deliberately chose to interpret what I said in a stupid manner and are trying to blame me for it.

I said a cardbord tube from a toilet roll collapsed at about 20 pounds. That is how I came up with 60 pounds for 3 to support.

So how could 3 tubes support 2,000 pounds? Now you want to imply that language supersedes physics.

Since iron is about 500 lb/cu ft a 60 lb disk 2 inches thick would have a diameter of 11 inches. That is not allowing for a hole in the center. Since I did not give any dimensions for the weights that must mean they "literally" had no dimensions, RIGHT?

Assume whatever idiocy serves your purposes. It is quite amusing.

psik

[tolman]

The literal meaning of what you wrote was that you thought you could make an element stronger by piling one element on top of another.

No, you just deliberately chose to interpret what I said in a stupid manner and are trying to blame me for it.

You're lying.
You were talking about 60lb capacity elements, and said that a stack of 33 (ie 33 of them) would have a capacity of ~2000lb.

If you were thinking of a 33-level pyramid you should have said so.

That's why I said that if you said what you had written to a bunch of engineers, they'd laugh at you.
Because they would.

And in any case, even interpreting what you wrote so it isn't bollocks, it's irrelevant since it's essentially about making a larger and more perfect version of a model which is not remotely useful with regard to the supposed topic, something any relevantly qualified engineer or scientist would see.

Being theoretically able to make a 16-foot high waste of time seems irrelevant to anyone who actually cares about 9/11.

[psikeyhackr]

You're lying.
You were talking about 60lb capacity elements, and said that a stack of 33 (ie 33 of them) would have a capacity of ~2000lb.

If you were thinking of a 33-level pyramid you should have said so.

That's why I said that if you said what you had written to a bunch of engineers, they'd laugh at you.
Because they would.

And in any case, even interpreting what you wrote so it isn't bollocks, it's irrelevant since it's essentially about making a larger and more perfect version of a model which is not remotely useful with regard to the supposed topic, something any relevantly qualified engineer or scientist would see.

Being theoretically able to make a 16-foot high waste of time seems irrelevant to anyone who actually cares about 9/11.

I recently did a little test with the cardboard tube from a toilet roll. I was wondering how much weight would collapse it. So I put it on a bathroom scale and pressed down until it collapsed. It took 20 lb. So 3 tubes in a triangular arrangement should support 60 lb.

A stack of 33 would be almost 2000 lb and at least 16 ft tall.

That is the quote from post #7763.

If I tested a single tube and figure 3 could hold 60 pounds then how could three hold 2000 pounds. 33 60 pound weights would be 1980, so that accounts for the 2000 pounds.

The 99 tubes is your preferred assumption. Anyone can go back and check my quote. You can call me a liar all you want.



Toilet tolls are 4 to 4.5 inches wide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... shrinking/

You make up what you want and ignore what you want. What was the thickness of the weights? I never said when you started your calculations. Very intelligent!

[344034]

psik

[GrahamH]

Neraly 8000 posts. Nice going Psi.

Can you make a video of "a stack of 33" toilet roll tubes in an arrangement at least 16ft tall and supporting 2000lbs ? How about a diagram?

[Xaihe]

You're lying.
You were talking about 60lb capacity elements, and said that a stack of 33 (ie 33 of them) would have a capacity of ~2000lb.

If you were thinking of a 33-level pyramid you should have said so.

That's why I said that if you said what you had written to a bunch of engineers, they'd laugh at you.
Because they would.

And in any case, even interpreting what you wrote so it isn't bollocks, it's irrelevant since it's essentially about making a larger and more perfect version of a model which is not remotely useful with regard to the supposed topic, something any relevantly qualified engineer or scientist would see.

Being theoretically able to make a 16-foot high waste of time seems irrelevant to anyone who actually cares about 9/11.

I recently did a little test with the cardboard tube from a toilet roll. I was wondering how much weight would collapse it. So I put it on a bathroom scale and pressed down until it collapsed. It took 20 lb. So 3 tubes in a triangular arrangement should support 60 lb.

A stack of 33 would be almost 2000 lb and at least 16 ft tall.

That is the quote from post #7763.

If I tested a single tube and figure 3 could hold 60 pounds then how could three hold 2000 pounds. 33 60 pound weights would be 1980, so that accounts for the 2000 pounds.

The 99 tubes is your preferred assumption. Anyone can go back and check my quote. You can call me a liar all you want.



Toilet tolls are 4 to 4.5 inches wide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... shrinking/

You make up what you want and ignore what you want. What was the thickness of the weights? I never said when you started your calculations. Very intelligent!

[344034]

psik

Hmm, 33x 4 inch = 11 foot. Add some 50% for fun, and you get around 16 ft. Is that how you got to 16 ft? It's just like your 33 stacks somehow making almost 2000 lbs. Now you're saying that 1 stack is 3 rolls, but you never explained that in your original post, nor did you explain how 33 stacks make 16 ft.

You're having some sort of conversation and only write out a small part of it in posts. And you wonder why people don't understand what you're saying...

[tolman]

And notwithstanding the poor description, it's all regarding making a larger version of a pointless model.

About the only thing anyone could learn from the original psi model is that it wasn't any good at modelling the WTC, not least because it effectively failed in a single way (crushing of vertical tubes), whereas the WTC clearly didn't fail that way, or in a single way.

Even in remotely-plausible WTC demolition theories (assuming we put all practical difficulties aside) much of the failure still involves things like bolts and connectors breaking and panels peeling off, with the vast majority of the destruction being down to the potential energy of the structure itself.
It's only the wilder reaches of conspiracy wank-fantasies which have a conspiracy wiring up most/all floors for explosive separation.

[psikeyhackr]

Hmm, 33x 4 inch = 11 foot. Add some 50% for fun, and you get around 16 ft. Is that how you got to 16 ft? It's just like your 33 stacks somehow making almost 2000 lbs. Now you're saying that 1 stack is 3 rolls, but you never explained that in your original post, nor did you explain how 33 stacks make 16 ft.

You're having some sort of conversation and only write out a small part of it in posts. And you wonder why people don't understand what you're saying...

Yay!

The genius who talked aout making a physical model of the Sun has joined in.

Have you decided which planet that should be done on?

psik

[psikeyhackr]

And notwithstanding the poor description, it's all regarding making a larger version of a pointless model.

In your view the only model with a point would be one that could completely collapse.

When did you make a video of that?

Which engineering school said they were going to do that?

psik

[GrahamH]

I hadn't seen this before

Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.

Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote.

http://www.livescience.com/16179-twin-t ... acies.html

Aluminium / water explosion

[tolman]

In your view the only model with a point would be one that could completely collapse.

In my view, the only physical model with a point regarding the WTC would be one which demonstrated something relevant which people didn't already know.
That would seem to be a sufficient reason for engineers not to fuck about with detailed scale models of the WTC for their own enlightenment, since they can achieve more enlightenment by other means.

When did you make a video of that?

How does one make a video of people not wasting their time and other resources on pointless physical models?

Which engineering school said they were going to do that?

It would seem that no engineering schools seem to think their pupils are sufficiently incapable of imagination and devoid of modern modelling ability to require a complicated and expensive physical model of the WTC to help them understand that structures can fail.

[GrahamH]

Also, remember physical properties don't scale equally. A small model will be lighter and stiffer than the full size structure. Since progressive collapse of a large building is all about the interplay of properties, some scaling linearly, some by area and others by volume, scale models will not be much use. Better to use a computational model that can represent the full size structure.

No engineering school would make models from toilet roll tubes and washers expecting to learn anything from it.

[tolman]

Indeed - it's one thing to physically model a largely static situation of a structure under load or overload, with or without damage, when all one is trying to do is look at things up to the point where failure (or some undesired situation) might begin, since one may be able to essentially ignore dynamic factors (like energy absorption after the point of failure initiation) when making the model.

Even in the days when physical models were widely used, what people were typically interested in was making designs to prevent failure starting in the first place, rather than looking at what happened after the point where one had already 'lost'.

Making a physical model of the dynamics of a failing structure seems to be a quite different thing.

[Xaihe]

Hmm, 33x 4 inch = 11 foot. Add some 50% for fun, and you get around 16 ft. Is that how you got to 16 ft? It's just like your 33 stacks somehow making almost 2000 lbs. Now you're saying that 1 stack is 3 rolls, but you never explained that in your original post, nor did you explain how 33 stacks make 16 ft.

You're having some sort of conversation and only write out a small part of it in posts. And you wonder why people don't understand what you're saying...

Yay!

The genius who talked aout making a physical model of the Sun has joined in.

Have you decided which planet that should be done on?

psik

You are hilarious sometimes.

[GrahamH]

Sometimes amusing. Most times pathetic.

[psikeyhackr]

Sometimes amusing. Most times pathetic.

The 911 Affair is pathetic.

If airliner impacts and fires could destroy the twin towers it should have been proven experimentally in 2002. So now the people who still haven't proven the collapses experimentally must continuously come up with excuses and dish out psychological bullsh!t.

When has Richard Gage and his cadre of "professionals" ever said anything about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?

We just had the Anniversary of the Eiffel tower. The break in the south tower was at about the same height as the top of the Eiffel Tower. It is impossible that in human history that there has ever been such a large man-made mass been in such an unstable position. But all of our "experts" can't mention the significance of the center of mass at a 22 degree tilt in THIRTEEN YEARS.

Yes, quite pathetic.

[344925]
psik

[THWOTH]

!

GENERAL MODNOTE psikeyhackr, Your post here, part of which is quoted below, contains unduly personal and inflammatory remarks which run counter to the general standards outlined in the Forum Users' Agreement you undertook to abide by when you became a member of the forum. ... It is not my fault that you do not have the capacity to figure out the obvious and then try to demonstrate that you are intelligent. ...If you want to try using it to prove how smart you are and give everyone a demonstration of how smart you really are that is fine with me. Personalising the discussion with speculation about the character and characteristics of your interlocutor is both unnecessary and irrelevant to the matter at hand. Please try and avoid similar posting in future. THWOTH If you have any questions about this modnote please feel free to PM myself or any member of the moderation team

[proudfootz]

Sometimes amusing. Most times pathetic.

The 911 Affair is pathetic.

If airliner impacts and fires could destroy the twin towers it should have been proven experimentally in 2002. So now the people who still haven't proven the collapses experimentally must continuously come up with excuses and dish out psychological bullsh!t.

When has Richard Gage and his cadre of "professionals" ever said anything about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?

We just had the Anniversary of the Eiffel tower. The break in the south tower was at about the same height as the top of the Eiffel Tower. It is impossible that in human history that there has ever been such a large man-made mass been in such an unstable position. But all of our "experts" can't mention the significance of the center of mass at a 22 degree tilt in THIRTEEN YEARS.

Yes, quite pathetic.

[344925]
psik

It does seem very off that the tops of both towers tilted as a mass - evidently something was attacking the cores - obviously the strongest part of the structures. Not much fuel there to justify the 'weakened steel' hypothesis.

And once set in motion, it's puzzling why the momentum of such a huge mass shouldn't continue along that path and topple toward that side.

[Xaihe]

Sometimes amusing. Most times pathetic.

The 911 Affair is pathetic.

If airliner impacts and fires could destroy the twin towers it should have been proven experimentally in 2002. So now the people who still haven't proven the collapses experimentally must continuously come up with excuses and dish out psychological bullsh!t.

When has Richard Gage and his cadre of "professionals" ever said anything about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?

We just had the Anniversary of the Eiffel tower. The break in the south tower was at about the same height as the top of the Eiffel Tower. It is impossible that in human history that there has ever been such a large man-made mass been in such an unstable position. But all of our "experts" can't mention the significance of the center of mass at a 22 degree tilt in THIRTEEN YEARS.

Yes, quite pathetic.

[344925]
psik

It does seem very off that the tops of both towers tilted as a mass - evidently something was attacking the cores - obviously the strongest part of the structures. Not much fuel there to justify the 'weakened steel' hypothesis.

And once set in motion, it's puzzling why the momentum of such a huge mass shouldn't continue along that path and topple toward that side.

How is that puzzling? Leaving aside the question of how the tilt started, the only way it could have toppled over, rather than go down once it started tilting, is if the entire weight of that portion can be supported by one side of the building, i.e. the outer columns.

So here's a question for you:
Once the toppling had started, how much weight do you think the failed columns of one side can carry? The answer to that should be completely obvious.