The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Agi Hammerthief]

The search turns up 20 pages of posts containing "distribution of steel" which go all of the way back to 2010.

if only you where as good at comprehension as at counting

[felltoearth]

It is curious that my gravitational and conservation of momentum only collapse takes 12 seconds and some people say most of the building came down in 11 seconds.

It's not curious if your model is shit.

And your model is pretty shit (and your quotation of an 11 second collapse is too, to be honest). I think you may find your explanation there.

End of thread here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... l#p2643957

[felltoearth]

How to investigate using software.

1. Buy software Structural engineers use
https://www.autodesk.com/industry/aec/b ... ngineering

2. Learn to use software.
3. Construct your model.

At the very least you’ll learn a skill and not waste your time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psikeyhackr]

Critique of Collapse Analysis (start @ 37 min)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha9mmcJ2_08

Tell it to this engineer who shows cross sections of columns early in the video but never expresses it as simply as distribution of steel down the building.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qATFBYACPzQ

[812744]
psik

[felltoearth]

Why? This is your bone that you’ve been chewing on for years. Do the work.

[econ41]

Why? This is your bone that you’ve been chewing on for years. Do the work.

Around 15 years chasing the same false trail dead end. To confirm the dates I would need to research the great-great-great-great (several more) - grandfather of this thread back in the R Dawkins forum era.

I remember multiple attempts to explain the physics of both the real collapse mechanism and psikey's "derail into distribution". Including his apparent obsession with resonance effects. I even pursued analogies to 1/4 wave radio antennas and closed/open organ pipes.... where the analogy to a fixed end vertical cantilever is more appropriate.

Of course the actual distribution of steel is irrelevant - the collapses occurred with the steel located where it was. And we can easily explain the collapses these days because some of us have done so many times.

[econ41]

Critique of Collapse Analysis (start @ 37 min)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha9mmcJ2_08

Tell it to this engineer who shows cross sections of columns early in the video but never expresses it as simply as distribution of steel down the building.
psik

He is incompetent - out of his depth. Whether deliberate or not the explanation he gives at that 37 min time point is copy-catting Tony Szamboti. He conflates features from the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses plus ignores the real cause of floor joist pull in.

[psikeyhackr]

Why? This is your bone that you’ve been chewing on for years. Do the work.

Of course the actual distribution of steel is irrelevant - the collapses occurred with the steel located where it was. And we can easily explain the collapses these days because some of us have done so many times.

Sure figuring out how steel has to be distributed for a 1360ft building to hold itself up is irrelevant so if you choose to BELIEVE in collapse rather than PROVE then it remains irrelevant.

ET&TTD.jpg (273.97 KiB) Viewed 494 times

Distribution of iron down the Eiffel Tower is irrelevant.

[The_Metatron]

Why? This is your bone that you’ve been chewing on for years. Do the work.

No shit. Twenty one god damned years, and this guy doesn’t have his own doctorate in the field.

Looks pretty fucking lazy.

[psikeyhackr]

Why? This is your bone that you’ve been chewing on for years. Do the work.

No shit. Twenty one god damned years, and this guy doesn’t have his own doctorate in the field.

Looks pretty fucking lazy.

Who the hell would give a shit about structural engineering if it weren't for the Twin Towers?

I went to college for Electrical Engineering and soldered together my first computer in 1978.

Structural engineers not talking about the distributions of steel and concrete down a 1360ft structure but expecting people to believe in a straight down collapse is hilarious. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of structural engineers are saying

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

about the Twin Towers. It is not like there is some majority of structural engineers supporting the NIST. So some stupid clowns need to make this a personal issue about me. LOL

[econ41]

No shit. Twenty one god damned years, and this guy doesn’t have his own doctorate in the field.

About 15 years for psikey.... back in 2007 I was the first engineer on the forum who tried to explain the WTC collapses including psikey's obsession with the irrelevancy of "distribution of steel". He was broadcasting it across the internet t that time. I recall "Googling" for his pet phrase and getting 12-15 or more "hits". Back then I was the lead poster on the engineering aspects and moderator for the sub-topic - we had no rules for "conflict of interest" at that time. And, by the expected standards of those days, psikey was trolling and should have been cautioned/sanctioned.

Looks pretty fucking lazy.

IMO stubborn determination to not learn. He put a lot of effort into making and testing his models of the collapses "back in the day" so it wasn't originally laziness.

[The_Metatron]

Yep. That’s how it works, you know. They all vote on what’s real.

Had you spent the last fifteen years getting an actual education and doing work in the field of structural engineering, you’d actually be in a position to refute something. As it is, you aren’t. And, you expect others to satisfy your pet conspiracy curiosities.

Fifteen years. Doctors don’t take that long to become doctors. What have you published? Where can we go see your peer reviewed work?

To be head up ass wrong for so long boggles the mind.

[econ41]

Sure figuring out how steel has to be distributed for a 1360ft building to hold itself up is irrelevant so if you choose to BELIEVE in collapse rather than PROVE then it remains irrelevant.

Stop conflating at least two unrelated issues psikey.

Issue #1 - distribution od steel
1) The steel in the wTC Towers was distributed as it was in the wTC Towers;
2) The Twin Towers collapsed with the steel distributed as it was in situ.

Issue #2 Explaining the collapse
3) The mechanism of collapse has been explained multiple times That mechanism was the collapse of the WTC Towers with the steel in situ.
4) I have explained the collapse several times on this forum and its predecessor.
AND
.. if you ever show serious interest in learning I'm prepared to explain it one more time.

Distribution of iron down the Eiffel Tower is irrelevant.

Agreed - it is doubly irrelevant to discussion of WTC collapses.
(a)The iron/steel in the Eiffel Tower is distributed as per the design for the Eifell Tower. To date it has not collapsed AFAIK.
AND
(b) The distribution of steel in the Eiffel Tower is irrelevant to the distribution of steel in the WTC Towers AND to explanation of the WTC collapses.

[econ41]

Structural engineers not talking about the distributions of steel and concrete down a 1360ft structure but expecting people to believe in a straight down collapse is hilarious.

The reason it collapsed "straight down" is NOW well understood. But the reason why was AFAIK first published on the Dawkins predecessor of this forum in late Nov 2007. This crude graphic:


... At the time I thought it was obvious. My naivete!

But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of structural engineers are saying

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Steel towers were subjected to humongous fires way beyond what they were designed for and they collapsed. There is neither mystery nor surprise in that for most structural engineers.

about the Twin Towers. It is not like there is some majority of structural engineers supporting the NIST. So some stupid clowns need to make this a personal issue about me. LOL

The only issue here for discussion is your stubborn determination to post irrelevancies whilst refusing to enter mature serious discussion about the reality if WTC collapses. Drop your games and get serious.

[psikeyhackr]

Structural engineers not talking about the distributions of steel and concrete down a 1360ft structure but expecting people to believe in a straight down collapse is hilarious.

The reason it collapsed "straight down" is NOW well understood. But the reason why was AFAIK first published on the Dawkins predecessor of this forum in late Nov 2007. This crude graphic:


... At the time I thought it was obvious. My naivete!

But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of structural engineers are saying

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

.

Ho hum, pictures of floors and trusses again even though the NIST says floors did not pancake.

Oh wait! All the NIST says is, "Global Collapse Ensued!"

Maybe you should contact them and explain it to them.

[psikeyhackr]

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center ... estigation

Oh wait! That is from 2011. DUH!

[econ41]

Ho hum, pictures of floors and trusses again even though the NIST says floors did not pancake.

Naughty. You're telling untruths and a person with your length of experience MUST know they are "porkies" AKA "Pork Pies" AKA ...
another word ending in "ies".

(For the benefit of members who may not know - FEMA in an early report claimed that collapse was initiated by pancaking. It wasn't. "Initiation" was the consequence of a cascading failure of columns in axial overloading driven by load redistribution. And therefore a necessarily sequential process - hard but not impossible to achiver by CD. Easy for an intense unfought fire. NIST disagreed with pancaking for the initiation stage. Took it for granted that everyone who needed to understand would understand the progression stage. That was probably an error of PR if nothing else.) (And many years of "both sides wrong" debates mostly recorded on another forum. )

Oh wait! All the NIST says is, "Global Collapse Ensued!"

Yes. And there are several overlaid ironies about that situation and the many years of contention that followed. NIST was probably "right for the wrong reasons". The true reason was posted Nov 2007 on the predecessor of this forum in the diagram I showed a couple of posts back. You should know the history psikey - you lived through the long debate.

It is a fun story - the correct explanations led by a couple of truthers who were right and opposed by a lot of debunkers who were wrong. Guess which side I "backed".

Maybe you should contact them and explain it to them.

Why?? NIST is not represented here and I have never accepted NIST or Bazant as ultimate infallible authorities.

[econ41]

More naughty fibs from psikey. Everyone note the key word "initiate" or "initiation"

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center ... estigation

Oh wait! That is from 2011. DUH!

Yes. And it has been misrepresented and quote mined many times. You are not the first.

NIST was discarding the earlier FEMA claim that collapse initiated the Twin Towers collapses. Remember NIST only explained "initiation" - you have already reminded us of that psikey but you seem to have forgotten. Again??

That said - the NIST reports do not make explicit distinctions between the stages of WTC Twin Towers' collapses. They focussed on "initiation" and did not explain "progression". And, for the last four or five years on other more active forums, I have been explaining the mechanism as four distinct stages - it gives the best foundation for explaining the collapse to laypersons.

[psikeyhackr]

??

That said - the NIST reports do not make explicit distinctions between the stages of WTC Twin Towers' collapses. They focussed on "initiation" and did not explain "progression". And, for the last four or five years on other more active forums, I have been explaining the mechanism as four distinct stages - it gives the best foundation for explaining the collapse to laypersons.

Oh damn, and the amount of steel and concrete that somehow had to be moved to allow that "progression" is irrelevant to trying to come up with an explanation because that is how science works.

It just ENSUED!

The Moon landing just ensued too. Maybe the NIST should replace NASA.

They have the right number of letters.