3 of 3
3
Field Guide to the Conspiracy Theorist: Dark Minds
Posted: 01 April 2017 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 27 March 2017 10:38 AM
LoisL - 26 March 2017 06:13 PM

you still haven’t explained who you think was involved in the conspiracy and how. Come on, give is something to chew on.

The title of this thread is: Physics & Skyscrapers
psik

No it’s not!  smirk
Or you would have allowed enough structural physics to soak in to appreciate why your questions are irrelevant to experts who understand how these structures are built.

I thought I found a perfect example that provided an opportunity to look at your specific physics questions regard level/floor to superstructure - something I have some direct understanding of.

I’m no authority on sky scrapers, but I understand their construction principles, that is what I shared.
You’ve avoided acknowledging all of that sound fundamental structural info and the physics that come along with it.
You do not incorporated any new information you’ve been offered over the course of this thread.

I emailed experts and received information on weight distribution, now you want to count the truss connectors - but the simple physical fact is such information is well enough known and definitely know to be irrelevant to the overall sequence of failures - by the experts that truly understand such matters.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2017 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

Psik, forgive me, but I’m going to do my damnedest not to feed that Troll of a thread any longer.
Thus I moved your comment over here under a more appropriately titled thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2017 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 08 May 2017 03:51 PM

9/11 Destroyed America
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/04/24/911-destroyed-america/

Think now about physicists. How many physics faculties do you know that are not dependent on federal grants, usually for military-related work? The same for chemistry. Any physics professor who challenged the official story of 9/11 with the obvious fact that the story contravenes known laws of physics would endanger not only his own career but the careers of his entire department.

Truth in America is extremely costly to express. It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford.

Our masters know this, and thus they can dispense with truth at will. Moreover, any expert courageous enough to speak the truth is easily branded a “conspiracy theorist.”

psik

Psik, for you I read the article but for all his opinions and convictions there’s no substance. 
Where does that article reach beyond base bloviation?
WHAT ARE THESE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT WERE CONTRAVENED?

As for the apparent inspiration of this article Steven E. Jones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Jones’ interests extend to archaeometry, solar energy,[11][12] and, like numerous professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[13] He has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith’s belief that Jesus Christ (when resurrected) visited America.[14]

Yuck, he’s already of my shit list for his tendency to embrace faith rather than facts.

World Trade Center destruction controversy[edit]

On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and iron-rich microspheres) were also found in the dust.[20] ...

Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” was his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[39] Jones’ early critics included members of BYU’s engineering faculty;[40] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones’ work. They noted that Jones’ “hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners,” and expressed doubts on whether they had been “submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.”[41] ...
and on and on ...

Nothing get’s past innuendo.  I’m supposed to believe that all the official soil test deliberately ignored traces of Thermite.  Really, how would that be accomplished?
Well, okay, but what if every technician and scientists wasn’t in on The Big Secret?

Also from other sources, it seems that none of the boom and concussion Thermite would created was detected (the seismic data is public), and some melting aluminum cascading out a window doesn’t count.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2017 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

FYI Psik:

Vaporizing the World Trade Center

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay

Some Statistics

Various sites give slightly different results but the following figures seem to be generally accepted.

Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg).
Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters.
Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters
Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons
Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square
The “bathtub” - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep.
I will tend to use numbers on the high side since those make the best case for conspiracy theories.

Some Derived Numbers . . .
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

The page ends with

“Your Estimates of Concrete are Too Large”

One architect has criticized me for using too large a figure for concrete. He insists that the concrete was much lower in density.

Bring it on. I’m all for it. The less the mass of the concrete, the easier it is to account for a lot of things. For example, if the floors were very porous light weight concrete, the energy needed to pulverize them would have been far less than that needed to break up standard concrete. And there would be a larger dust to solid ratio, and maybe even less dust overall, and the concrete would pulverize into smaller pieces. As I noted, I used large figures because those make the best case for conspiracy theories.

Nutty 9-11 Physics
Really Nutty 9-11 Physics
Nanoparticles at the World Trade Center

Return to Pseudoscience Index
Return to Professor Dutch’s Home Page

Created 30 January, 2006;  Last Update 02 June, 2010

Not an official UW Green Bay site

You might want to check out the information the professor shares, that is if you are looking to understand your mystery.  Then again some love mystery for mystery sake and refuse sober appraisals.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2017 07:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2785
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 01 April 2017 11:09 AM
psikeyhackr - 27 March 2017 10:38 AM

The title of this thread is: Physics & Skyscrapers
psik

No it’s not!  smirk
Or you would have allowed enough structural physics to soak in to appreciate why your questions are irrelevant to experts who understand how these structures are built.


How is structural physics done without knowing the distribution of mass in steel and concrete down a 1360 foot building?

How much steel was on level one to support how much weight compared to level 55 to support how much weight?

Then you take a quote from another thread and talk about what the title is not!

psik

[ Edited: 13 May 2017 07:50 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2017 08:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2785
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 01 April 2017 11:09 AM

I emailed experts and received information on weight distribution, now you want to count the truss connectors .

And you provided this data where?  And where did you specify who these “experts” were?

People have been showing the side views of trusses forever to imply that the connections were weak but then never say how many there were.  If you are going to post pictures of trusses like you do here:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/229964/

then why complain about my asking about your not providing complete information about the subject you chose?  Aren’t 10 connections stronger than 2 connections.  Wouldn’t 100 connections be stronger than 10 connections?  How about 1000?  So why bring them up without specifying how many and then accuse me of changing the subject.

We know the standard concrete slabs were 600 tons and the weight of steel holding those slabs.  That does not change.  So the change in steel weight from level to level would be in the core and perimeter steel thickness.  They are separate issues.

psik

[ Edited: 13 May 2017 09:15 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 13 May 2017 08:01 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 01 April 2017 11:09 AM

I emailed experts and received information on weight distribution, now you want to count the truss connectors .

And you provided this data where?  And where did you specify who these “experts” were?

Go back to the thread I included all the pertinent information there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

  author-psikeyhackr date-1494745280]http://fff-centerforinquiry-net/forums/viewreply/229964/
then why complain about my asking about your not providing complete information about the subject you chose?  Aren’t 10 connections stronger than 2 connections.  Wouldn’t 100 connections be stronger than 10 connections?  How about 1000?  So why bring them up without specifying how many and then accuse me of changing the subject.

psik

{quote author - psikeyhackr date-1488287897}People making a big deal of the FLOOR outside the core are constantly showing those truss connections.  They rarely specify how many connections there were however.

  This is the problem with trying to discuss stuff with someone who obviously has almost no understanding of construction - but who is absolutely certain of himself and absolutely convinced the experts can’t be trusted.

“How many connections go between a truss and the super structure?”  Hmmm, do you know what a truss is?  Have you never seen them installed? 
How many fingers did the man have, if he’d have had twenty on each hand he’d a been even more dexterous.
As my my carpenter hero and mentor would say YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO ASK THAT QUESTION - meaning:
think fool, you know that answer and if you don’t you don’t belong here. 

psikeyhackr - 13 May 2017 08:01 PM

People have been showing the side views of trusses forever to imply that the connections were weak but then never say how many there were.

FIND ME ONE EXPERT WHO CLAIMS THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS WERE WEAKLY BUILD - FIND A REAL ONE OR SHUT UP!
Everything I’ve heard and read about them, indicated the WTCs where extremely well engineered, almost over engineered, they we build tougher than anything up to that date.
What happened to them was beyond the bounds of what anyone imagined - and beyond what anyone could have engineered into a real high rise.

The floor connecters where plenty strong - they could not have been engineered up to stopping twenty floors dropping on them!

Psik, what’s been so hugely sad about watch my attempt at constructive dialogue with you is how you continue to ignore fundamental high-rise construction reality.
What’s up with that?

The entire reality of how floors/levels are only capable of carrying their own individual loads -
and how floors/levels transfer their load to the super-structure,
and it is the superstructure that carries the load of all the accumulating weight above that point.

The catastrophic collapse was simple physics, inertia, momentum, stuff like that.
This reminds me of the fool who didn’t think twice entering the flood waters, “heck it’s barely up to my knees - no problem”
never taking into account the speed of the water.

Have at it:

Original plans for WTC twin towers (123MB .zip file with 175 sheets in .tif format)

archive.org/details/WTC-PLANS

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

Thinking of conspiracy theories.
Why does it seem that the CFI S.N. seems almost malevolent?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

In wrestling with the S.N. I wound up posting an older version of my response to Psik.  Most important being my caveat to

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 15 May 2017 10:50 AM

What happened to them was beyond the bounds of what anyone imagined - and beyond what anyone could have engineered into a real high rise.

Okay, with enough focus and resources an awful lot can be engineered for.

How to Terror-Proof the New World Trade Center
Andrew Tarantola - 9/09/11
http://gizmodo.com/5838327/terror-proofing-the-new-world-trade-center

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
psikeyhackr - 16 March 2017 06:38 PM
DarronS - 16 March 2017 06:22 PM

Conspiracies and conspiracy theories are not synonymous.

Yes, it is so annoying that the people engaged in conspiracies do not advertise so that the defective theories can be easily eliminated.

But then if you just try to resolve something on the basis of physics you are accused of being disingenuous for not subscribing to some conspiracy theory without having sufficient data.

psik

No, not when you try to resolve something on the basis of physics. It’s when you try to resolve something on the basis of a false understanding of physics or a lack of valid information about the conditions that you are accused of subscribing to some conspiracy theory.  I want to point out that for all of your minute so-called scientific investigation of what happened to the towers on 9/11, you have yet to describe who might have been involved in a conspiracy, how they carried it out and to what end? All you’ve done is claim that the towers were brought down by something “other than” the jets running into them. You have yet to explain how or why conspirators were involved or who they might have been, beyond implying, without evidence, that some unnamed people in the US government “must have been” involved. And you still haven’t shown any evidence or even an explanation of how or why anyone was involved other than the known perpetrators identified in government and private reports (such as the investigative team at Popular Mechanics magazine, which prepared its own respected analysis and is not under goverment control, though I suspect that you would say they were also part of the conspiracy, too,  as is just about everyone must have been who has disagreed with you on your conspiracy claims.

Lois

[ Edited: 15 May 2017 01:25 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 15 May 2017 10:52 AM

Thinking of conspiracy theories.
Why does it seem that the CFI S.N. seems almost malevolent?

Because it is, no “almost” about it. I’m beginning to believe that Satan exists, not in Hell, but inside the CFI Forums’ computer program, wreaking havoc.

😝

Lois

[ Edited: 15 May 2017 01:27 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2017 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1460
Joined  2016-12-24

Frog-choking-bird.png

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2017 09:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 15 May 2017 10:52 AM

Thinking of conspiracy theories.
Why does it seem that the CFI S.N. seems almost malevolent?

Aren’t all Nazis malevolent?

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3