I moved this out of crop circles and pseudo-science since skyscrapers are grade school physics.

Rocinante - 10 February 2011 12:14 PM

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 11:38 AM

I’m sorry.  I didn’t know I had to specify a VERTICAL STRUCTURE.

That is what WTC 1 & 2 were.  The conservation of momentum doesn’t apply to a bridge falling down through empty space like the mass of the top of the north tower falling down into mass designed to support it.

I purposely chose bridges to point out how silly your implication is.  Bridges don’t have story after story of excess weight on top of them. 

So now it is your turn.  You show me any other self-supporting vertical structure that:

Was already weakened by being slammed into at 500 MPH by a jetliner

Had its fire proofing knocked off its trusses

Burned uncontrollably from a combination of jet-fuel and office furniture

Had its steel load lateral holding columns sheared off by a jetliner

Oh and while your at it, find me one controlled demolition crew that can drill thousands of holes in concrete, cut and pre-score thousands of support beams, insert hundreds of pounds of explosives, run thousands of feet of wiring for the weeks on end it would require and all in an occupied building without anyone noticing anything unusual…and keeping quite about it for nearly 10 years! 

Even though you can’t show any of those, I can show you a self-supporting vertical structures that collapsed from fire:

Steel-Framed Building Collapses from Fire

You will notice it was a toilet paper factory.  Appropriate for all the shit that comes from the vile and disgusting Troofers!

You brought up the bridges because you are STUPID!

And can you tell us the TONS of steel on every level of these self supporting vertical structures?

The NIST couldn’t do it for the WTC in 3 years with 10,000 pages and $20,000,000.

So if the airliner could do so much damage then why did the building only move 15 inches due to the impact?

It seems you can’t handle any rational physics since you need to come up with the moronically emotional “all the shit that comes from the vile and disgusting Troofers!” 

And then the example you use is a ROOF COLLAPSE.  A horizontal structure like a bridge.  It was not a vertical structure having to hold dozens of levels of its own weight.

He added: “Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof.”

So how thick does the steel have to be to support a roof?

psik

It is not worth getting suckered into yet another conversation with you about this subject, when you do not consider any evidence presented, and keep taking us over the same discounted ground over and over and over again.

asanta - 10 February 2011 09:09 PM

It is not worth getting suckered into yet another conversation with you about this subject, when you do not consider any evidence presented, and keep taking us over the same discounted ground over and over and over again.

Evidence!

That you can’t supply accurate data on the distribution of steel in a building that had to hold itself up?

People that have decided to believe nonsense can’t figure out what evidence is.  The NIST doesn’t even specify the total amount of concrete in 10,000 pages.  Oh yeah, they told us how much luggage was in the aircraft.

psik

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

I moved this out of crop circles and pseudo-science since skyscrapers are grade school physics.

Did you do have grade school physics? When no, then how do you know? When no, did you try to convince those who have?

Can you explain why weakening of steel bearers due to prolonged heat do not explain the WTC falling together? Why do think that when one story breaks down under the weight of many above it, the building does not crash like a free fall?

And why, above all, why are you repeating the same point again and again here? This is a forum of atheists, humanists, a few scientists and others interested. Imagine you would convince us all. What would change? What is the rationality of your behaviour?

GdB

GdB - 11 February 2011 12:16 AM

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

I moved this out of crop circles and pseudo-science since skyscrapers are grade school physics.

Did you do have grade school physics? When no, then how do you know? When no, did you try to convince those who have?

Can you explain why weakening of steel bearers due to prolonged heat do not explain the WTC falling together? Why do think that when one story breaks down under the weight of many above it, the building does not crash like a free fall?

And why, above all, why are you repeating the same point again and again here? This is a forum of atheists, humanists, a few scientists and others interested. Imagine you would convince us all. What would change? What is the rationality of your behaviour?

GdB

GdB, when are you going to get it?? He is a member of MENSA! He don’t need no stinkin’ high school physics. He’s smarter than all of the very experienced failure analysis engineers who have combed over the actual evidence, and is perfectly capable of formulating his own theory!

Yippy here we go again, where’s DM?

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

So how thick does the steel have to be to support a roof?

It’s not how thick you make it ~ it’s how hard you keep it

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

You brought up the bridges because you are STUPID!

I’ll admit I am not the smartest guy out there.  But at least I am not as stupid as the average Troofer.

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

And can you tell us the TONS of steel on every level of these self supporting vertical structures?

Approximately 100,000 tons of steel per building.  110 floors.  100,000 divided by 110 equals a little over 909.  If the math is too difficult to do in your head, get a calculator. 

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

The NIST couldn’t do it for the WTC in 3 years with 10,000 pages and $20,000,000.

Assuming your statement is correct (which is a BIG assumption), so what?  That wasn’t what they were searching for - because that information is already out there.  I found it in literally less than 5 seconds with a Google search and another 5 seconds of doing the match - - and I’ll admit I used a calculator!   Besides, even IF NIST didn’t make such a big deal out of the amount of steel per floor, how in the hell does that prove anything?!

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

So if the airliner could do so much damage then why did the building only move 15 inches due to the impact?

What do you mean, “only” 15 inches?!  Fifteen inches is huge! You go out and push a building 15 inches!  And not just any building!  Push a 110 story skyscraper 15 inches!

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

It seems you can’t handle any rational physics since you need to come up with the moronically emotional “all the shit that comes from the vile and disgusting Troofers!” 

I’d be remiss if I didn’t make a humorous comment about it being a toilet paper factory!

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

And then the example you use is a ROOF COLLAPSE.  A horizontal structure like a bridge.  It was not a vertical structure having to hold dozens of levels of its own weight.

Don’t you see that all that extra weight on top of an area that was extremely damaged by impact and fire helped lead to the collapse? 

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

So how thick does the steel have to be to support a roof?

I’d guess about as thick as the skull of the average Troofer.

Now, I’ve answered your questions.  You answer the ones I’ve asked about buildings being hit by jetliners, loosing their fire-proofing, having supports knocked out and super-secret demolition teams being able to operate invisibly for weeks on end without anyone noticing anything unusual.  Oh, and shove a building 15 inches too!

asanta - 11 February 2011 12:28 AM

GdB, when are you going to get it?? He is a member of MENSA! He don’t need no stinkin’ high school physics. He’s smarter than all of the very experienced failure analysis engineers who have combed over the actual evidence, and is perfectly capable of formulating his own theory!

Obviously Mensa is not a guarantee against using intelligence in a reasonable way.

GdB

GdB - 11 February 2011 12:16 AM

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

I moved this out of crop circles and pseudo-science since skyscrapers are grade school physics.

Did you do have grade school physics? When no, then how do you know? When no, did you try to convince those who have?

I built one of these during my grade school years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k0lXbTQGfs

The nitwit nuns had science books sitting on the shelves that they never used.

I was building and launching model rockets.  I started reading science fiction at age 9.  Because of words and concepts I learned from those books I would have 3 encyclopedia open while I was reading one SF book.  When I finally got a physics course in high school it was a bore.  I got straight A’s in all science courses but sci-fi books made science more fun than any of the teachers ever did.

Now there are at least 3 different reasons for needing to have accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers.

The first is analyzing the airline impact.

The second determining how fire could weaken a sufficiently large amount of steel to SUPPOSEDLY start a collapse in that little time.

The third is computing the energy required to collapse each level for the north tower to come down at all much less do it in less than 18 seconds.

Of course the south tower is a separate issue because of the top portion completely breaking loose and tilting at more than 22 degrees.

You don’t think grade school kids could build and understand this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Potential energy calculations are nothing but multiplication and addition of masses at all of the different levels.  Here are the PE calcs for that model.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/conspiracy-theories/the-obligatory-9-11-thread-part-ii-t6310-2840.html#p701405

psik

GdB - 11 February 2011 06:04 AM

asanta - 11 February 2011 12:28 AM

GdB, when are you going to get it?? He is a member of MENSA! He don’t need no stinkin’ high school physics. He’s smarter than all of the very experienced failure analysis engineers who have combed over the actual evidence, and is perfectly capable of formulating his own theory!

Obviously Mensa is not a guarantee against using intelligence in a reasonable way.

GdB

Obviously atheism isn’t either.  How often do atheists imply they are intelligent, rational and scientific.

So why haven’t atheists inquired about the distributions of steel and concrete in skyscrapers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

How can any SO CALLED PHYSICS be done on analyzing the towers without accurate data?  The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete much less how it was distributed.

But after NINE YEARS it is a Psychological Problem.  How do people explain forming opinions without data?

psik

TO THE DOCTORS AT PSIKEYHACKR’S INSTITUTE:

For the safety of himself and all the staff, please remove any of psikeyhackr’s sharp writing instruments (pens, pencils) and replace with crayons for him to finish his Manifesto. 

Also double his meds.

Rocinante - 11 February 2011 12:40 PM

TO THE DOCTORS AT PSIKEYHACKR’S INSTITUTE:

For the safety of himself and all the staff, please remove any of psikeyhackr’s sharp writing instruments (pens, pencils) and replace with crayons for him to finish his Manifesto. 

Also double his meds.

Why don’t you just build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapsed by the drop of its top 15% or less?  This video requires no words.

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

Talk is CHEAP!

psik

citizenschallenge.pm - 11 February 2011 02:07 AM

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

So how thick does the steel have to be to support a roof?

It’s not how thick you make it ~ it’s how hard you keep it

Are you saying that the thickness does not affect how hard it can remain for how long when exposed to intense heat?

psik

psikeyhackr - 11 February 2011 02:24 PM

citizenschallenge.pm - 11 February 2011 02:07 AM

psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 08:42 PM

So how thick does the steel have to be to support a roof?

It’s not how thick you make it ~ it’s how hard you keep it

Are you saying that the thickness does not affect how hard it can remain for how long when exposed to intense heat?

psik

No, I’m saying the obvious intense combustion going on compromised the exposed steel,
as mention above, the weight above those floors stressed the heat compromised structural trusses and connections beyond tolerances.  Once the first floor buckled there was no stopping immediate catastrophic collapse.

As mentioned in last year’s thread, the structural elements of the building, including its exterior structural component facilitated that perfect vertical collapse that’s burned into our memories.

citizenschallenge.pm - 11 February 2011 03:26 PM

No, I’m saying the obvious intense combustion going on compromised the exposed steel, as mention above, the weight above those floors stressed the heat compromised structural trusses and connections beyond tolerances.  Once the first floor buckled there was no stopping immediate catastrophic collapse.

So how do you know a floor buckled or that it could start the collapse?

The NIST says the core supported 53% of the weight of the building.  We don’t have the weight of steel in the core at the levels where the planes hit so your comment about compromised trusses is just repetition of official story.  BELIEF THAT COLLAPSE WAS POSSIBLE.

And that does not explain the destruction of more than 90 stories below where the plane hit the north tower.

psik