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

#9661  Postby newolder » Sep 16, 2021 4:49 pm

I doubt it'll make the slightest bit of difference to our resident troll but after 20 years I thought I'd just ask the computer...
Image
SciAm link
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9662  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 16, 2021 5:22 pm

newolder wrote:I doubt it'll make the slightest bit of difference to our resident troll but after 20 years I thought I'd just ask the computer...
Image
SciAm link


Oh wow! That is so fucking informative.

Nothing about the floor slab in the core being different from the floor slab outside the core.

Nothing about mechanical floors.

How much concrete was in the 6 basement levels? In 20 years I have not seen a single source specify steel and concrete below ground level versus steel and concrete above ground level.

It is as though BELIEVERS need to defend their minds from relevant information. Thinking must be prevented at all costs.

Are you saying that the $20,000,000 NCSTAR1 report should not specify the total amount of concrete even though it specifies the total amount of steel three times?

With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," .


https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... wers-fell/

The funny thing about a potential energy calculation is that it assumes that the mass in question is falling through empty space and that gravity is free to accelerate the mass all of the way. Then there is the matter of skyscrapers being bottom heavy. Oh, the article doesn't mention that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... from-9-11/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/repo ... niversary/
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1444

Print view this post

The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9663  Postby felltoearth » Sep 16, 2021 6:19 pm

Edit. Fuck it. I’m not getting drawn into this again. It’s a complete waste of time.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14299
Age: 54

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9664  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Sep 16, 2021 6:26 pm

trolly troll wrote:I’ve got 20 goal posts and I can move them wherever I want to :drunk:
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

meh
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2862
Age: 48
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9665  Postby newolder » Sep 16, 2021 6:38 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
newolder wrote:I doubt it'll make the slightest bit of difference to our resident troll but after 20 years I thought I'd just ask the computer...
Image
SciAm link


...


It's not often I'm wrong ...

Absolutely no difference made, just as expected. Goodbye trolly troll troller.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9666  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 16, 2021 7:03 pm

So quote what the Scientific American article said about mechanical floors.

I read it within a few months of its publication. It never.said anything worth paying attention to.

1% of an atomic bomb while not saying distribution of mass would affect the so called potential energy. :lol:
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1444

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9667  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Sep 16, 2021 7:06 pm

psikeyhackr* wrote:there: new place for the goal posts, see if you can hit before I move them again
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

meh
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2862
Age: 48
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9668  Postby The_Metatron » Sep 16, 2021 7:47 pm

felltoearth wrote:Edit. Fuck it. I’m not getting drawn into this again. It’s a complete waste of time.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I came here for an argument!
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21247
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9669  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Sep 16, 2021 7:53 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
I came here for an argument!

* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

meh
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2862
Age: 48
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9670  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 16, 2021 8:22 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Edit. Fuck it. I’m not getting drawn into this again. It’s a complete waste of time.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I came here for an argument!


ROFL

An argument about what? The $20,000,000 report that implies that it is about skyscraper collapses and studies airliner impacts and resulting fires to death but says nothing about the distributions of steel and concrete that had to be determined to support the structures?

Find the total amount of concrete in the towers and point out how idiotic I must be not to have found it. I searched on 'steel' to try to find the distribution but only found the totals. The word 'concrete' occurs between 3,000 and 3,500 times. 10 years ago I probably could have told you the exact number. Must be Alzheimer's. :lol:


This is rather amusing:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p602143
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1444

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9671  Postby The_Metatron » Sep 17, 2021 2:15 am

How idiotic you are or are not is entirely your own doing. No reason exists for me to look up anything at all to help you in that endeavor.

But, I am scared shitless over the precipitous drop in resale values of my conveyances, since Sputnik. Because ... I don't know. Because something conspiracy to which you and only you see and can save us, if only the masses would just listen to you!

You've had twenty years to learn all there is to know about structural engineering. I am making the assumption that you have done nothing towards achieving that level of knowledge and understanding. Perhaps my assumption is premature.

Please, show us a few links to your published papers in the field. We want to see what you have added to the body of knowledge. Stuff that passes peer review muster, that sort of work.

You know what that would do? It would end the thread. You could show us all how right you were.

But, you haven't done any of those things, I'm suggesting.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21247
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9672  Postby newolder » Sep 17, 2021 9:26 am

It looks like you, psikeyhackr, are addressing the post directly above your last and I've been drawn in again, haven't I? :doh: Heigh ho...
psikeyhackr wrote:So quote what the Scientific American article said about mechanical floors.

Your momentum equation of post #9622 asks for a “falling mass” that is, to first approximation n times the single floor mass supplied by the SciAm link above and where n is the number of falling floors. Note that n increases as the collapse gathers more floors. Therefore, there is no requirement for me to, “... quote what the Scientific American article said about mechanical floors.”

I read it within a few months of its publication. It never.said anything worth paying attention to.

You've had 20 years to address your lack of comprehension skills...

1% of an atomic bomb while not saying distribution of mass would affect the so called potential energy. :lol:

... yet you choose to end your post with an incoherent rant. I'm only guessing that you'll post more gibberish after this so, if I choose to ignore you in future, don't fret. :wave:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9673  Postby hackenslash » Sep 17, 2021 1:11 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:An argument about what? The $20,000,000 report that implies that it is about skyscraper collapses and studies airliner impacts and resulting fires to death but says nothing about the distributions of steel and concrete that had to be determined to support the structures?


You're looking for irrelevant information. I left you some clues, but you decided to ignore them.

here are the critical factors:

Tensile strength and how it can be compromised.
The mass of each floor.

Your appeals to Noether, which you're too illiterate in real physics to even understand you made, are just one in a long line of things you don't get, and you won't get any closer to understand the fall of the towers until you understand them.

The funny thing is, you almost had it, when you talked about the lean. There's a fucking ginormous clue in there.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21851
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9674  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 17, 2021 3:44 pm

Note that n increases as the collapse gathers more floors. Therefore, there is no requirement for me to, “... quote what the Scientific American article said about mechanical floors.”.


And where does the energy come from to break supports? I already built a model of the physics.

Modeling & Testing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

That is why I want to see ACCURATE physical and virtual models that collapse. Verbal bullshit from "experts" depends on trusting experts. Why shouldn't honest experts provide steel and concrete distribution data?

Not even providing the total amount of concrete in the towers is either incompetent or untrustworthy.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1444

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9675  Postby newolder » Sep 17, 2021 4:48 pm

@psikeyhackr,
ACCURATE is a word I would not use to describe what I just saw at your link. I couldn't take more than 3 minutes of the "presentation" so I don't know if you went on to model how a floor's "support" is strengthened, weakened or completely unaffected by the impact, explosion and fires of a passenger aircraft crashing in at speed.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7397
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9676  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Sep 17, 2021 6:08 pm

psikeyhackr wrote: Why shouldn't honest experts provide steel and concrete distribution data?

because it doesn’t matter:

The highest factor of safety given in the NIST report is 2.
According to an architect I consulted for my own house a factor of safety of 2,3 was standard in 1960.

Meaning: the walls of my house are designed to take 2,3 times the loads expected to ever be applied.


WTC 1 had 16 levels plus hat-trussed moving down on the first undamaged floors.
That’s about 8x as much as the floors where designed for, and that factor just keeps on increasing with each floor below that.

So whatever the exact weight of floor 93, the weight destroying it was at least that times 16.
What does your proposed model tell you with those numbers?

Edit: punctuation, spelling & spacing
Last edited by Agi Hammerthief on Sep 18, 2021 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

meh
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 2862
Age: 48
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9677  Postby felltoearth » Sep 17, 2021 8:05 pm

^this

There are also two parts to the WTC collapse.

1. What happened before the collapse to cause the catastrophic structural failure.

2. The collapse itself.

Psikeyhacker seems to be conflating the two. NIST’s remit and the scope of the investigation was only the first point.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14299
Age: 54

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9678  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 20, 2021 2:10 am

felltoearth wrote:^this

There are also two parts to the WTC collapse.

1. What happened before the collapse to cause the catastrophic structural failure.

2. The collapse itself.

Psikeyhacker seems to be conflating the two. NIST’s remit and the scope of the investigation was only the first point.


So if we had an excellent computer simulation of the North Tower the top 20 stories could be raised 60 simulated feet and dropped. A 60 foot gap should be greater than the damage the aircraft and fire could do. It would just be kinetic energy versus the 90 story structure. The simulation would make it possible to move the 20 stories a few get horizontally in any direction.

My personal guess is that 30 or more stories would remain standing no matter what. The NIST wasted $20 million not attacking the most important point. Why did the entire building come down so fast?
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1444

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9679  Postby Greg the Grouper » Sep 20, 2021 5:10 am

psikeyhackr wrote:The NIST wasted $20 million not attacking the most important point. Why did the entire building come down so fast?


The source psikeyhackr provided, answering this very question wrote:NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 54

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9680  Postby psikeyhackr » Sep 20, 2021 5:43 pm

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."


Claiming something and proving it are two different things.

If they won't even talk about how steel had to be distributed in a structure that supported itself for 25 years I am not about to just BELIEVE.
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1444

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests

cron