psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:18 AM

But most people on both sides are just rationalizing their BELIEFS regardless of how dumb.

Pot, meet kettle.

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:18 AM

There are stupid people talking bullshit on both sides of this issue. 

And how do you know that you’re not one of them?

traveler - 26 September 2011 08:33 AM

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:18 AM

There are stupid people talking bullshit on both sides of this issue. 

And how do you know that you’re not one of them?

So where is your physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?  Where is any physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?

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

I provided sufficient information so that anyone who wants to can duplicate my model. So far only one person has said that he did and he got the same results.

Physics does not give a damn about anybody.  People on this site CLAIM to be rational and scientific.  What is your problem with EXPERIMENTS?

What is your problem with expecting to be given accurate data on the steel and concrete down the towers?  The NIST report does not even specify the total for the concrete though it did it for the steel.  How many people here even downloaded the report to read or search it for themselves?  The people who trust in authority expect everybody to do it even when what authority is saying makes no sense relative to the physics.

psik

DarronS - 26 September 2011 08:28 AM

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:18 AM

But most people on both sides are just rationalizing their BELIEFS regardless of how dumb.

Pot, meet kettle.

So where is your physical model that can completely collapse GENIUS?

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

You sent me the PM about this thread remember?

So demonstrate your BRILLIANCE.

psik

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:56 AM

traveler - 26 September 2011 08:33 AM

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 08:18 AM

There are stupid people talking bullshit on both sides of this issue. 

And how do you know that you’re not one of them?

So where is your physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?  Where is any physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less?

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

I provided sufficient information so that anyone who wants to can duplicate my model. So far only one person has said that he did and he got the same results.

Physics does not give a damn about anybody.  People on this site CLAIM to be rational and scientific.  What is your problem with EXPERIMENTS?

What is your problem with expecting to be given accurate data on the steel and concrete down the towers?  The NIST report does not even specify the total for the concrete though it did it for the steel.  How many people here even downloaded the report to read or search it for themselves?  The people who trust in authority expect everybody to do it even when what authority is saying makes no sense relative to the physics.

psik

I asked a simple question.

Neither of us is an architect or a materials engineer. In this case we should trust the experts. I sent you the PM to see if you would consider new evidence. You won’t. You keep asking questions, yet offer no alternative theory. You make a lot of noise, but say nothing. All you offer are personal attacks and cynicism toward science. Your mind is closed on this subject.

traveler - 26 September 2011 09:14 AM

I asked a simple question.

You got a simple answer.

I don’t know what you think of skyscrapers holding themselves up so I don’t know what you think it takes to bring one down.

But I am not aware of a lot of people demanding accurate data on the distribution of steel down the towers.  I did a search on “square cube law”.  I think that is a pretty simple law but I am about the only person to mention it on this site.  Too much of this so called debating is oriented toward psychological bullshit rather than the physics of the actual problem.

psik

psikeyhackr - 26 September 2011 09:21 AM

traveler - 26 September 2011 09:14 AM

I asked a simple question.

You got a simple answer.

Well, I really didn’t but no matter. Your simple model does not represent the reality of the WTC scenario. I took two courses in college related to this issue (A’s in both, thank you); statics, and strengths of materials. I have stayed out of this conversation because I am not qualified to make the conclusions you make. What are your qualifications; spare toilet paper rolls and washers? Really?

DarronS - 26 September 2011 09:16 AM

Neither of us is an architect or a materials engineer. In this case we should trust the experts. I sent you the PM to see if you would consider new evidence. You won’t. You keep asking questions, yet offer no alternative theory. You make a lot of noise, but say nothing. All you offer are personal attacks and cynicism toward science. Your mind is closed on this subject.

It is not my fault that you call that junk evidence.  That isn’t fleshed out enough to qualify as a THEORY.

I told you that the evidence from the NIST based on paint deformation and microscopic metallurgical tests didn’t show temperatures high enough for that silly speculation.  Have you ever downloaded the NIST report?  I downloaded it and burned it to DVD 4 years ago.  I have searched it hundreds of times.

It is not my fault that you trust in AUTHORITY without thinking and then regard yourself as intelligent for doing so.

9/11 is a SIMPLE PROBLEM.  It is not my fault that you think you need EXPERTS for a simple problem.  A skyscraper has to hold itself up.  That means more weight has to be supported the further down you go.  If more steel was necessary on the 105th level then on the 110th level to support 5 stories then all of the levels below 105 had to support the added weight on 105.  And that applied all of the way down the towers and the physics of gravity dictates the same characteristics for every skyscraper in the world.  There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall.  I can’t find the distributions of steel and concrete specified by level for any of them.  How can the Potential Energy for any of them be computed? 

I worked for IBM.  I have seen EXPERTS make their area of expertise seem more complicated and confusing than it really is.  But the Empire State Building is 80 years old.  This subject is for 8th graders.

So even if I thought it likely that airliners could destroy skyscrapers that big in that little time I would expect to be given accurate data on the distributions of the steel and concrete down the buildings.  So I am not responsible for what you BELIEVE on the basis of totally inadequate data.

psik

Once again you are ignoring things you have been told many times. When the top started to collapse the impact force sheared the bolts holding the floors. Events cascaded from there.

Unless you quit shouting and come up with a plausible alternate scenario no one will listen to you.

What is your alternative?

DarronS - 26 September 2011 11:11 AM

Once again you are ignoring things you have been told many times. When the top started to collapse the impact force sheared the bolts holding the floors. Events cascaded from there.

Unless you quit shouting and come up with a plausible alternate scenario no one will listen to you.

What is your alternative?

Where is there any shouting in this video?

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

Where is your model of a complete collapse?  Where have any of your EXPERTS built a model that can completely collapse?

So you can repeat the same stuff you repeated before.  I am so impressed!

You are just talking about the floors pancaking outside and of course stacks of floors were never found.  But you explain nothing about what happened to the core columns and the horizontal beams connecting columns in THE CORE.  You just ignore what does not fit into your paradigm. 

If the floors pancaked then where were the stacks of floors in the rubble?

THE CORE of the north tower above the airliner impact zone had to come down on the STATIONARY CORE below the impact zone.  All of this talk about bolts has nothing whatsoever to do with THE CORE coming down.  It was the amount of steel in THE CORE and the PERIMETER COLUMNS that had to increase down the building.  The floor and bolts were mostly the same.  You are ignoring the realities of the building while accusing me of ignoring what you say.  You aren’t saying anything important to the physics.  You don’t even have evidence of pancaking floors and the NIST says that did not happen.

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.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

So if the NIST does not agree with your pancaking then what are you talking about?

psik

I have a question. What’s your alternate scenario? 

I stand corrected, psikey. Thank you for posting what really happened.

traveler - 26 September 2011 01:38 PM

I have a question. What’s your alternate scenario? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

psik

This video appears, to me, to discuss the 2001 9/11 event honestly. I’d be happy to hear well argued rebuttals of any of it’s statements, which are, very well credentialed I would say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c1WERse4uI