Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

Ah. New page. An American conspiracy obviously.

I approve of this particular conspiracy.

quas wrote:Not sure if you have an apple-to-apple comparison here. .

ROFL

One of the Twin Towers was wider than that building was tall. But the towers were designed and construction was begun in the 60s.

psik

WTC Specs; Official v Alternative Hypothesis
Daniel DeHaan

https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC- ... Hypothesis

That website is simply a series of baseless assertions unsupported by any sort of civil or mechanical engineering calculations designed to fit a preconceived narrative. In particular, Table 7 appears to be completely drawn from the rectal region of the author.

The floors themselves were about 8cm thick and were about 2086 m2. That gives them a weight of 166.88 * 2.4 T/m2 = 400.512 tons of concrete alone, not the ~40 tons contained in Table 7.

So this is yet another example of a 9/11 truther getting their sums wrong by a factor of 10. Nothing new to see here.

psikeyhackr wrote:WTC Specs; Official v Alternative Hypothesis
Daniel DeHaan

https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC- ... Hypothesis

From the link:-

Energy at impact:

OH - 29 stories at 4500 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 885.9MJ
AH - 14 stories at 1400 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 142.2MJ

Formula for kinetic energy k.e. = 0.5mv2

OH - k.e. = 0.5 x (29x4,082,331) x 12.52 = 0.5 x 118,387,609 x 156.25 = 9,249MJ
AH - k.e. = 0.5 x (14x1,270,059) x 12.52 = 0.5 x 17,780,821 x 156.25 = 1,389MJ

Thommo wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:WTC Specs; Official v Alternative Hypothesis
Daniel DeHaan

https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC- ... Hypothesis

From the link:-

Energy at impact:

OH - 29 stories at 4500 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 885.9MJ
AH - 14 stories at 1400 tons each, 12.5 m/s yields 142.2MJ

Formula for kinetic energy k.e. = 0.5mv2

OH - k.e. = 0.5 x (29x4,082,331) x 12.52 = 0.5 x 118,387,609 x 156.25 = 9,249MJ
AH - k.e. = 0.5 x (14x1,270,059) x 12.52 = 0.5 x 17,780,821 x 156.25 = 1,389MJ

WOW, those are such impressive numbers!

So where has the energy required to destroy the lower portions been computed in FIFTEEN YEARS.

Tacoma Bridge (with explaination)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB008RAluyg

In 1940 it took 4 months to make a model of the bridge to duplicate the oscillations in a wind tunnel. They did not have electronic computers. So how is it the neither physical nor virtual models of the north tower collapse have been done in FIFTEEN YEARS. But then we would need accurate data on mass distribution in steel and concrete to create such models. Steel and concrete would not behave the same on impact.

psik

Sorry, what's your point? If the numbers aren't impressive what's the point of a link that does nothing other than compute those numbers and get them wrong?

And regardless of that, how is getting them right not an improvement on getting them wrong? Isn't this guy part of a movement that literally named itself after "truth"?

I will also note that JAT's post contains a reasonable estimate for the mass of concrete in one floor - and the post by psikeyhackr contains masses for large elements of the building - which allows one to compute the TONS OF STEEL AND TONS OF CONCRETE.

Well done, psikeyhackr, you've finally answered one of your own longest-running questions.

I note you haven't done anything with the information.

Thommo wrote:Sorry, what's your point? If the numbers aren't impressive what's the point of a link that does nothing other than compute those numbers and get them wrong?

And regardless of that, how is getting them right not an improvement on getting them wrong? Isn't this guy part of a movement that literally named itself after "truth"?

I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy. The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.

But I do not hear many scientists or engineers asking about the mass distribution data on the towers so the "science" of the supposed collapses is complete crap.

The building had to get stronger toward the bottom so more energy should be required to destroy it progressively downward. But using up energy would slow the falling portion reducing its kinetic energy. So how did the structure come down so fast? Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.

psik

psikeyhackr* wrote:. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy.

hey, did I see some shifting of goalposts there?
Actually for years you have been claiming that there is no data at all, which I showed you to be wrong just before you got the boot at RD-Forum.

So now it's trustworthy data that is lacking... I guess that's progress of sorts.
Next step: Understand why we don't need the exact data?

psikeyhackr wrote:

I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy. The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.

With so many similar buildings being constructed already, so why is it that we can't have the probable/estimated data on the mass distribution of steel and concrete of the 9/11 towers?

psikeyhackr wrote:Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.

If you don't give a shit about an error of a factor of more than 10, why do you give a shit about a possible error of less than a factor of 3?

quas wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:

I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy. The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.

With so many similar buildings being constructed already, so why is it that we can't have the probable/estimated data on the mass distribution of steel and concrete of the 9/11 towers?

because people are lazy and we** don't need it to understand the modus of collapse.

** "we" as in "those people who have enough understanding of mechanical engineering to understand the modus of collapse in the first place".

psikeyhackr wrote:
I really only provided that link for the pictures about distribution of mass. I have been saying for years that we do not have trustworthy data on the mass distributions in steel and concrete of the towers but they had to be bottom heavy.

The definition of trustworthy is not "conforms to my preconceptions" but rather it is "deserving of trust or confidence". I do (and you should) have confidence in data that produces a building that remained standing for decades and only fell down when it was struck by a huge jet aeroplane.

The last time I checked 50 skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since 2011. It is not like engineers do not know how to design such structures.

Are these the engineers with similar qualifications and training to the engineers who have already evaluated and modelled the destruction of the towers? Because, if they are, then I am completely mystified as to how you trust one set and not the other.

But I do not hear many scientists or engineers asking about the mass distribution data on the towers so the "science" of the supposed collapses is complete crap.

Well, they did ask (and answer) back in 2007 when the NIST report first came out. The rest of the world has moved on in the intervening decade though.

The building had to get stronger toward the bottom so more energy should be required to destroy it progressively downward. But using up energy would slow the falling portion reducing its kinetic energy. So how did the structure come down so fast? Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.

psik

This is a complete non sequitur and is an example of a classic [url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll]concern troll[/'url].

Thommo wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.

If you don't give a shit about an error of a factor of more than 10, why do you give a shit about a possible error of less than a factor of 3?

If you do not have any data on the amount of energy required to crush the lower 85 stories of the north tower then how can you compute any factor of error? Why don't you do an experiment on a structure that can support its own weight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

Almost SIXTEEN YEARS! Engineering schools should be able to come up with much better experiments, right?

A 3D printer capable of 2 ft by 2 ft objects could make each level 1.5 inches tall. Wouldn't a good model still require accurate mass distribution?

psik

You keep posting up your dumb, irrelevant model as if it somehow matters to the discussion.

You might as well post a picture of a brick not breaking when another brick is dropped on it - it would be just as much of a gotcha as your video is.

You have been told, time and time again, in great detail, why your model is totally irrelevant to the entire discussion of the WTC.

Your trolling and refusal to accept reality is tiresome.

psikeyhackr wrote:

Thommo wrote:

psikeyhackr wrote:Just providing an impressive number for the amount of Potential Energy does not solve the problem when you really can't even prove the number is correct if you don't know the mass of steel and concrete on every level.

If you don't give a shit about an error of a factor of more than 10, why do you give a shit about a possible error of less than a factor of 3?

If you do not have any data on the amount of energy required to crush the lower 85 stories of the north tower then how can you compute any factor of error?

Very, very, very, very, very, very, very easily.

The difference between a uniform distribution showing 4,500 tonnes per story and a picture showing 1,500 tons per story (for that section of the building) is 4,500/1,500 = 3.

The difference between the calculation in the post which claims to be the kinetic energy of 29 stories at 4,500 tons each at 12.5 m/s and the correct calculation for those figures is 9,249/885.9 = 10.44.

And 10.44 is a larger number than 3.

#&*%!@ 9/11 Anniversary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMV8E_83NiI