26 of 91
26
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 12 May 2013 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 376 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

After I did some investigation about psikey’s claim that experts said nothing about a concrete core in the WTC, it very quickly became obvious why:

THE WTC TOWERS HAD NO CONCRETE CORES.

I repeat: the WTC towers did not have a concrete core.

The WTC towers were a new design for their time and did not incorporate a concrete core in their design. Instead, the structures were built using a ‘tube inside a tube’ design and the core of the buildings were supported by structural steel, not steel reinforced concrete. Those structural supports were then coated with fire proofing sprays, which was blasted off the support beams when aircraft impacted the buildings and exploded.

For those interested in the facts, I recommend you do digging about the core designs of the WTC towers. They did not use reinforced concrete cores, they only used structural steel coated with fire retardant materials. This is also why the WTC towers were actually quite light for their size and the design was more concerned about wind load effects than the weight of the buildings themselves.

I know psikey is a liar as proven in this thread, but apparently I completely underestimated just how much lying he was doing.

Mention concrete again, psikey, and how the experts don’t bring up it. I enjoy calling you the liar you are, and every time you mention concrete for the tower designs, I will call you liar again. LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 377 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 12 May 2013 08:59 AM

Do you not find it curious that

Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM

our best experts on the subject, funded by millions and who spent years examining the case

could not experimentally demonstrate the principle that destroyed the towers? Wouldn’t this at least be a legitimate avenue of research in the years that have passed since?

When you discover gravity, jomper, get back to us. LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 378 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 02:26 PM

After I did some investigation about psikey’s claim that experts said nothing about a concrete core in the WTC

Where did I say that?

I have said there is controversy about whether or not there was a concrete box around the core and how high up it went if there was any.

Accuse me of saying what I did not say and then call me a liar.

Great strategy!

psik

[ Edited: 12 May 2013 03:14 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 03:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 379 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 12 May 2013 02:48 PM

Where did I say that?

I have said there is controversy about whether or not there was a concrete box around the core and how high up it went.

Which is a lie. There is no such controversy, the WTC towers had no concrete core. Only four inch thick concrete floor slabs support by a steel deck and steel bar trusses.

Accuse me of saying what I did not say and then call me a liar.

Great strategy!

psik

You’ve been caught outright lying again, claiming that the distribution of concrete throughout the towers is unknown.

The concrete floors of the WTC were four inches thick, and did not support any weight of the structure, although they obviously added to it. The weight of the buildings was supported by structural steel alone, no concrete support structure of any kind.

Absolutely anyone can determine this with even half hearted looking, for example as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=2gQtox9ukYw&NR=1

Either you didn’t even try looking, or you just lied. And we already know as a fact you are a liar. LOL

If you were an honest person who wasn’t scared of math, I’d say you could take your claimed figure for the amount of concrete cited by NIST and calculate how much would be required for the square footage for the number of floors, with each one being four inches thick. But that would require honesty and using math, both of which you are publicly guilty of avoiding.

Of course NIST didn’t include concrete in their analysis; concrete contributed mass only to the towers and had nothing to do with structural strength.

Lie some more, psikey. LMAO! LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 01:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 380 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 02:27 PM
jomper - 12 May 2013 08:59 AM

Do you not find it curious that

Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM

our best experts on the subject, funded by millions and who spent years examining the case

could not experimentally demonstrate the principle that destroyed the towers? Wouldn’t this at least be a legitimate avenue of research in the years that have passed since?

When you discover gravity, jomper, get back to us. LOL

As predicted, you’ve got nothing but horribly misplaced ridicule in place of evidence that the principle you claim destroyed the towers actually exists on days other than 9/11.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 06:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 381 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 01:25 AM

As predicted, you’ve got nothing but horribly misplaced ridicule in place of evidence that the principle you claim destroyed the towers actually exists on days other than 9/11.

This is jomper’s objection to my claim gravity destroyed the WTC towers, people. Laugh away! LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 382 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 06:34 AM
jomper - 13 May 2013 01:25 AM

As predicted, you’ve got nothing but horribly misplaced ridicule in place of evidence that the principle you claim destroyed the towers actually exists on days other than 9/11.

This is jomper’s objection to my claim gravity destroyed the WTC towers, people. Laugh away! LOL

No, this was my objection, which of course you have not addressed:

Do you not find it curious that

Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM

our best experts on the subject, funded by millions and who spent years examining the case

could not experimentally demonstrate the principle that destroyed the towers? Wouldn’t this at least be a legitimate avenue of research in the years that have passed since?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 383 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 03:12 PM
psikeyhackr - 12 May 2013 02:48 PM

Where did I say that?

I have said there is controversy about whether or not there was a concrete box around the core and how high up it went.

Which is a lie. There is no such controversy, the WTC towers had no concrete core. Only four inch thick concrete floor slabs support by a steel deck and steel bar trusses.

Accuse me of saying what I did not say and then call me a liar.

Great strategy!

psik

You’ve been caught outright lying again, claiming that the distribution of concrete throughout the towers is unknown.

So explain the origin of the 425,000 cubic yards of concrete number.  I didn’t make it up.

World Trade Center Stats

  200,000 tons of steel
  425,000 cubic yards of concrete

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html#ixzz2T7T5gF3B

The 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in building the World Trade Center

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

But I notice you have not claimed to have read the 10,000 pages.

You also haven’t pointed out anything incorrect about what I said about “center of mass”.  So come up with more silly “liar” accusations.

psikeyhackr - 12 May 2013 07:25 AM
Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM
jomper - 12 May 2013 12:32 AM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:44 PM

You’re the one challenging the official conclusion. The burden of proof rests with you to demostrate its faults.

Whereas it is apparently not incumbent on you to demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers actually occurs in the real world in any way, shape or form—except on 9/11, of course…

Correct. I did not create, contribute to or validate the official conclusion. I merely reviewed it and found it extensive, thorough and sound.

So tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers.

They said there were “roughly 200,000 tons of steel” in three places in the report.  That agrees with data from before 9/11.  But that data also says there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete.

Are you claiming to have read the entire 10,000 pages?  I have admitted many times that I have not.  But I burned it to DVD 6 years ago and have searched it hundreds of times.  You can search it for “center of mass” and “center of gravity” and there is never any mention of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.  When they use “center of mass” they are talking about the aircraft.  When they say “center of gravity” they are talking about the components they simulated in a computer.  But there were 2800 perimeter wall panels on each tower from the 9th floor to the top and we do not have the weights and quantity of each variation of panel.

But you found it “EXTENSIVE, THOROUGH and SOUND”.

ROFLMAO

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/179857/

[9355]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 384 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 07:55 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 06:34 AM
jomper - 13 May 2013 01:25 AM

As predicted, you’ve got nothing but horribly misplaced ridicule in place of evidence that the principle you claim destroyed the towers actually exists on days other than 9/11.

This is jomper’s objection to my claim gravity destroyed the WTC towers, people. Laugh away! LOL

No, this was my objection, which of course you have not addressed:

Do you not find it curious that

Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM

our best experts on the subject, funded by millions and who spent years examining the case

could not experimentally demonstrate the principle that destroyed the towers? Wouldn’t this at least be a legitimate avenue of research in the years that have passed since?

No, it wouldn’t. The experts already know what destroyed the towers, which I explained is gravity.

Their only job was to determine and explain what the most consisent and evidence based analysis showed what happened to the towers prior to collapse. And they have done so quite nicely.

If you have objections to their evidence and conclusions, submit your evidence and arguments. If you just go back to appealing to the notion anyone needs to model gravity collapsing a structure, I’ll take that as your concession you have no evidence or argument to make. Gravity causing a collapse of a structure in neither surprising or demands a need to test that reality.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 385 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 08:11 AM

Gravity causing a collapse of a structure in neither surprising or demands a need to test that reality.

Again, it is the manner of the collapse that is in question and needs to be properly demonstrated, validated and understood. It absolutely needs to be tested, but mysteriously this has never been done. It seems incredible that I have remind you the collapses were total and shockingly quick—such that many media pundits on the day (and many of the people in the open plan office I happened to be working in at the time) were openly speculating that terrorists had somehow managed to put bombs in the buildings as well as hijacking the planes. Again, if gravity was so obviously the sole cause, the effect should be easy for you or one of the many experts you invoke to demonstrate in principle.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 386 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 08:21 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 08:11 AM

Gravity causing a collapse of a structure in neither surprising or demands a need to test that reality.

Again, it is the manner of the collapse that is in question and needs to be properly demonstrated, validated and understood. It absolutely needs to be tested, but mysteriously this has never been done. It seems incredible that I have remind you the collapses were total and shockingly quick—such that many media pundits on the day (and many of the people in the open plan office I happened to be working in at the time) were openly speculating that terrorists had somehow managed to put bombs in the buildings as well as hijacking the planes. Again, if gravity was so obviously the sole cause, the effect should be easy for you or one of the many experts you invoke to demonstrate in principle.

So you and a bunch of other laypersons were surprised the towers collapsed and speculated about bombs. While having no evidence and appealing to your ignorance on the issue.

The actual experts knowledgable and educated about building design and physics, on the other hand, were surprised the towers stayed standing as long as they did, never having been designed to withstand that kind of damage and effects.

I’ll stick with the expert opinions and conclusions which have been verified by every single effort I’ve personally investigated. Until you have evidence and an argument, your wild speculations and appeal to personal incredulity don’t concern me. But thanks for playing, jomper.

If at any point you have any evidence and actual argument to make, be sure to submit them.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 387 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 08:32 AM

The actual experts knowledgable and educated about building design and physics

continue to be unable to demonstrate the effect you think destroyed the towers, even though more than a decade has passed. That is an irrefutable fact, is it not?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 388 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 08:49 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 08:32 AM

The actual experts knowledgable and educated about building design and physics

continue to be unable to demonstrate the effect you think destroyed the towers, even though more than a decade has passed. That is an irrefutable fact, is it not?

No it is not. Not doing something does not equate to being unable to do something. Like my stamp collecting effort I’ve made zero progress on for decades. This doesn’t mean I’m unable to collect stamps.

There is no need for such a demostration, anymore than I feel any need to demostrate the earth is round to a flat earth believer. Claiming it should ‘be easy to demostrate’ doesn’t mean I suddenly have a pressing need for demostration.

So until you have evidence and an argument beyond the ‘me and a bunch of other people were surprised and speculated about bombs’, you have nothing of worth to contribute to discussion. But feel free to submit any good evidence and argument if you have them.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 389 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 09:01 AM

you have nothing of worth to contribute to discussion

I am merely observing a curious fact: which is that the effect you claim destroyed the towers cannot actually be shown to exist on days other than 9/11.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 390 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 09:04 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 09:01 AM

you have nothing of worth to contribute to discussion

I am merely observing a curious fact: which is that the effect you claim destroyed the towers cannot actually be shown to exist on days other than 9/11.

Then you will prove this assertion without appealing to your claim it hasn’t been demonstrated. I have not claimed it has not been demostrated or cannot be demostrated. You are making that claim, therefore you have the burden to prove it.

And so we’re clear, I reject your claim it hasn’t been done therefore means it cannot be done. I don’t even accept your claim it hasn’t been done, since I see no one proving that assertion.

Never mind what I’ve been talking about is gravity. LOL

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
   
26 of 91
26