28 of 91
28
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 13 May 2013 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 406 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

Yes. I leave you to your speculations and the irrational things you are happy to take at face value.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 407 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 03:47 PM

Yes. I leave you to your speculations and the irrational things you are happy to take at face value.

I see nothing irrational about coming up with very good reasons why NIST would refrain from releasing sensitive data that could be useful to terrorist agents, but still update engineering principles and safety factors without directly pointing out they are in response to potential terrorist attack methods.

Quite plausible and rational speculation, although I made no secret of what pure speculation is worth.

Didn’t have much choice though, given your complete disinterest in evidence and arguments I repeatedly asked you for. That’s something the rest of us real skeptics and free thinkers are interested in.

However, I am happily reassured that when confronted with pure speculation and no evidence or arguments, your response is to dismiss the conversation as pointless. Welcome to the skeptic camp where 9/11 truthers come wandering in and most of us do the exact same thing! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 04:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 408 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

PS: And I leave it to fellow CFI members to make their own jokes at the expense of someone who cries about taking things at face value and speculation, while earlier in said discussion they had no problem bringing up their personal speculation and first impressions of what the WTC collapses looked like. wink

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 409 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

Thanks for representing the position of

Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 04:00 PM

real skeptics and free thinkers

It’s been interesting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2013 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 410 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 May 2013 04:25 PM

Thanks for representing the position of

Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 04:00 PM

real skeptics and free thinkers

It’s been interesting.

Happy to oblige. You’re always welcome back when you’re prepared to submit evidence and arguments on subjects. smile

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2013 06:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 411 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 02:59 PM

Incidently, I should point out that the claimed fact NIST didn’t release all their data with regards to computer simulations is actually reassuring. This indicates to me that on top of merely confirming their conclusions about the events leading to the collapse of the WTC towers, they also discovered additional weak points and vulnerabilities that could be exploited by any would be terrorists to bring down additional large structures and kill thousands more innocent people. Releasing that information publicly would be criminal and gross incompetence from supposed experts concerned with public safety and well being. Especially since their simulations would only verify their findings, not be the sole piece of evidence by which they make their conclusions.

Great, come up with excuses for people who can’t specify the total amount of concrete in the towers but do for the steel..It must be a security issue.

LOL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2013 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 412 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 14 May 2013 06:03 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 02:59 PM

Incidently, I should point out that the claimed fact NIST didn’t release all their data with regards to computer simulations is actually reassuring. This indicates to me that on top of merely confirming their conclusions about the events leading to the collapse of the WTC towers, they also discovered additional weak points and vulnerabilities that could be exploited by any would be terrorists to bring down additional large structures and kill thousands more innocent people. Releasing that information publicly would be criminal and gross incompetence from supposed experts concerned with public safety and well being. Especially since their simulations would only verify their findings, not be the sole piece of evidence by which they make their conclusions.

Great, come up with excuses for people who can’t specify the total amount of concrete in the towers but do for the steel..It must be a security issue.

LOL

psik

You’ve already submitted the amount of concrete in the towers from the NIST report yourself, psikey, and we know it was distibuted as four inch slab flooring throughout the towers that does not contribute to structural strength. So now you’re lying about information you provided yourself! LOL LMFAO! LOL

Since the concrete did not add to structural strength but only added mass and thus impact energy to any collapsing part of the WTC tower, if NIST truly did not add it into their calculations then that proves they were in fact being extremely conservative in their analysis by not including one of the heavier elements of the design that did not make the towers stonger, only heavier! LOL

It’s nice to see you finally defending the NIST report for a change! LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2013 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 413 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 14 May 2013 06:13 AM
psikeyhackr - 14 May 2013 06:03 AM
Robert Walper - 13 May 2013 02:59 PM

Incidently, I should point out that the claimed fact NIST didn’t release all their data with regards to computer simulations is actually reassuring. This indicates to me that on top of merely confirming their conclusions about the events leading to the collapse of the WTC towers, they also discovered additional weak points and vulnerabilities that could be exploited by any would be terrorists to bring down additional large structures and kill thousands more innocent people. Releasing that information publicly would be criminal and gross incompetence from supposed experts concerned with public safety and well being. Especially since their simulations would only verify their findings, not be the sole piece of evidence by which they make their conclusions.

Great, come up with excuses for people who can’t specify the total amount of concrete in the towers but do for the steel..It must be a security issue.

LOL

psik

You’ve already submitted the amount of concrete in the towers from the NIST report yourself, psikey, and we know it was distibuted as four inch slab flooring throughout the towers that does not contribute to structural strength. So now you’re lying about information you provided yourself! LOL LMFAO! LOL

Oh really?

When people stepped out of the elevators in the core what were they walking on.  What about the bathrooms in the core?  Didn’t they have floors?

You obviously haven’t examined the NIST report to well.  You expect your readers to be more ignorant than you are.

Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches. Remember, that it is important for the “official line” that there be a discontinuity between “inside the core” and “outside the core”. Hence, the 5 inch slab inside the core and 4 inch slab outside the core. Outside the central core, the floor deck was supported by a series of composite floor trusses that spanned between the central core and exterior wall. I claim that this is nonsense, see the article The World Trade Center Demolition. Composite behavior with the floor slab was achieved by extending the truss diagonals above the top chord so that they would act much like shear studs, as shown in Figure 2-6.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch2.htm

[9673]
psik

[ Edited: 14 May 2013 10:50 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2013 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 414 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

Bawhahaha!! LOL LOL This whole time psikey was asserting we don’t know the distribution of concrete throughout the towers and I pointed out that there is a four inch slab of concrete resting on a steel plate and trusses throughout the towers, which doesn’t contribute to structural strength since it’s merely flooring and there is no concrete core support structure.

His reply? The core inner tube has a five inch thick floor of concrete. First off, I never said the inner core did not have concrete flooring, I did say say the four inch slab was throughout the building. He literally only corrects there is an additional inch thickness of concrete flooring in the inner core, which doesn’t actually refute my assertion (only clarifies and adds detail) and also does not refute the fact said concrete flooring does not add structural strength to the towers.

What an amazing revelation by psikey, clarifying a detail about concrete distribution throughout the towers when he kept saying he didn’t know! LOL

What a surprise, he lied again! LOL

Psikey: “We don’t know the distribution of concrete throughout the WTC towers. Unless someone points out the concrete slab flooring, and then I can correct them to the nearest inch for specific square footage areas!” LMFAO! LOL

[ Edited: 14 May 2013 11:44 AM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 415 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05

Jeez, it just occurred to me last night. How to combine computer precision with physical modelling that would probably prevent cheating via computer lies.

3D printing!

Use a 3D printer to produce each level of the north tower. The thickness of columns could be varied to the level of precision of the printer. Each level could be made as strong or as weak as desired. Empty spaces could be left to insert metal slugs or ball bearings to control the weight of each level. And the printing process would mean it would not be to difficult to do multiple tests. They could be repeated all over the world.

So how big are 3D printers to scale 208 ft by 208 ft?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 416 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

Will this 3D printer help you do simple math, like comparing the ratio of load bearing cross sections and capacities between your model and full sized structures?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 07:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 417 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:20 AM

So how big are 3D printers to scale 208 ft by 208 ft?

Oh my, nothin’ lurn’d…

This is what you think should have happened?

Or even better, this one (the second demolition)?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 418 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2283
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 15 May 2013 07:49 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:20 AM

So how big are 3D printers to scale 208 ft by 208 ft?

Oh my, nothin’ lurn’d…

This is what you think should have happened?

Or even better, this one (the second demolition)?

Why don’t you try to provide a link to where I have discussed demolition on this site and justify your comment?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 419 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 10:38 AM
GdB - 15 May 2013 07:49 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:20 AM

So how big are 3D printers to scale 208 ft by 208 ft?

Oh my, nothin’ lurn’d…

This is what you think should have happened?

Or even better, this one (the second demolition)?

Why don’t you try to provide a link to where I have discussed demolition on this site and justify your comment?

psik

Ah, so your entire argument of how it is ‘physically impossible’ for the towers to have collapsed under their own weight after extensive structural damage which is confirmed by our best experts isn’t an argument for another cause? Tell us, psikey, do you think the WTC towers are still standing? If not, what do you propose actually did collapse the towers the day two large, fully fueled aircraft slammed into them at high speed and exploded?

You don’t sit there and claim someone shot in the head with a bullet wasn’t the cause of death when you don’t submit an alternative explaination that fits all the facts. All the evidence in the world of other people surviving gunshots to the head does not prove your case.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2013 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 420 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 15 May 2013 10:50 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 10:38 AM
GdB - 15 May 2013 07:49 AM
psikeyhackr - 15 May 2013 07:20 AM

So how big are 3D printers to scale 208 ft by 208 ft?

Oh my, nothin’ lurn’d…

This is what you think should have happened?

Or even better, this one (the second demolition)?

Why don’t you try to provide a link to where I have discussed demolition on this site and justify your comment?

psik

Ah, so your entire argument of how it is ‘physically impossible’ for the towers to have collapsed under their own weight after extensive structural damage which is confirmed by our best experts isn’t an argument for another cause? Tell us, psikey, do you think the WTC towers are still standing? If not, what do you propose actually did collapse the towers the day two large, fully fueled aircraft slammed into them at high speed and exploded?

You don’t sit there and claim someone shot in the head with a bullet wasn’t the cause of death when you don’t submit an alternative explaination that fits all the facts. All the evidence in the world of other people surviving gunshots to the head does not prove your case.

Your argument literally stands or falls on its own merits, not on those of the alternatives.

Profile
 
 
   
28 of 91
28