psikeyhackr - 26 March 2012 02:35 PM

domokato - 26 March 2012 10:37 AM

You didn’t answer the question

The Python program already covered that.  It is not my fault that you cannot figure out the obvious effect of physical supports.

Obviously, they double the collapse time? No need to calculate that part.

I did that with the physical model.

Still a very bad model with an non-collapsible core. Nor any fires.

All you can do is regard that as unacceptable

What more do I need to do?

domokato - 26 March 2012 03:45 PM

What more do I need to do?

Grow a brain.

I only doubled the number to show the given collapse time was too short.  The 12 seconds was with constant masses.  With correct data it would most likely be closer to 14 seconds.  But that can’t be computed if we don’t have correct data.  But people who believe in the collapse object to anyone asking about correct data.

Supports would have to get stronger toward the bottom just like in my model so crushing them would require more energy.  The dowel in my model does not participate in the collapse and since it is parallel to the force of gravity it does not resist gravity.  That is just a talking point for you to advertise your illogical argument.

I already described a thought experiment with a 5 level gap which is more damage than plane and fire could do so your bringing up the fire is just more nonsense.  How could 15 stories accelerate through 90 stories and and be explained without the steel and concrete distributions?  Truly hilarious.

psik

psikeyhackr - 26 March 2012 07:20 PM

domokato - 26 March 2012 03:45 PM

What more do I need to do?

Grow a brain.

psik

That’s the eventuality of any sincere conversation with psik.

traveler - 27 March 2012 05:27 AM

psikeyhackr - 26 March 2012 07:20 PM

domokato - 26 March 2012 03:45 PM

What more do I need to do?

Grow a brain.

psik

That’s the eventuality of any sincere conversation with psik.

Oh really? 

But none of you have written programs to test collapse times.  In fact has anyone even run my program?  Has anyone asked a question about the code?  Has anyone looked at the code?  No one has tried explaining anything wrong with it.

Has anyone built a physical model that can completely collapse?

These threads always go into these long hesitations because you people cannot come up with a meaningful case.  You can just talk a lot of nonsense that helps you BELIEVE what you prefer but you cannot justify it.  But everyone is supposed to BELIEVE in a top down gravitational collapse of a 400,000+ building without accurate data on the building.  Even if I thought it was possible I would expect official sources in the government to supply that data in human readable form and easily readable computer form.  Like they never heard of comma delimited files.

psik

We need the Holy Script of the Building Data.  Jeez!  This is beginning to sound like a religious argument.

I looked at your code. I didn’t have time to really analyze it. I never said it was wrong. I accepted the calculated time at face value. The point was that the calculated time was too short to prove anything.

Does this say anything?

Better pic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.svg

domokato - 27 March 2012 03:13 PM

I looked at your code. I didn’t have time to really analyze it. I never said it was wrong. I accepted the calculated time at face value. The point was that the calculated time was too short to prove anything.

The time it took the building to come down was TOO SHORT.

The point of the program is that just changing the distribution of mass changes the minimum possible collapse time even under magical conditions.  So what sense doe it make to not have accurate distribution of steel and concrete information to analyse what happened under non-magical conditions?

The change from 12 to 14 seconds is more than 16%  That does not count the increase in energy requirements to crush lower levels because the steel had to get thicker.

psik

Write4U - 27 March 2012 03:25 PM

Does this say anything?

Better pic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.svg

It may be better for you.  I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD 4 years ago.  I have said that numerous times.  Unfortunately this site does not lists individual posts when you do a search so I can’t show all of the times I have told you.  It seems you all just prefer to think I don’t know what I am talking about.

I have diagrams that show the locations of all of the toilets and sinks and urinals in the core.  But that does not provide data on how the thickness of the horizontal beams in the core changed down the building.  That would change the tons of steel on each level.

psik

psikeyhackr - 27 March 2012 05:01 PM

domokato - 27 March 2012 03:13 PM

I looked at your code. I didn’t have time to really analyze it. I never said it was wrong. I accepted the calculated time at face value. The point was that the calculated time was too short to prove anything.

The time it took the building to come down was TOO SHORT.

Yes, and to prove that, you would need a calculated time that came out to something GREATER than the actual time.

psikeyhackr - 27 March 2012 05:08 PM

Write4U - 27 March 2012 03:25 PM

Does this say anything?

Better pic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.svg

It may be better for you.  I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD 4 years ago.  I have said that numerous times.  Unfortunately this site does not lists individual posts when you do a search so I can’t show all of the times I have told you.  It seems you all just prefer to think I don’t know what I am talking about.

I have diagrams that show the locations of all of the toilets and sinks and urinals in the core.  But that does not provide data on how the thickness of the horizontal beams in the core changed down the building.  That would change the tons of steel on each level.

psik

Did you add the weight of all the tiolets and urinals? And desks, filecabinets, safes, computers, printers, furniture, etc, etc?  How much more hundreds of tons of weight existed within the building that wasn’t there when it was built?

IMO, there are just too many unknown variables. The main point is that it happened and there was an identified cause which set the events in motion. You cannot seperate these events and look for the possibility that under normal circumstance individual events could not have happened.

Look at it from a “motive and opportunity” angle. Publicity wise what difference would it have made if only the top 15 floors had come down. Bin Laden wanted to make a point and by his own words the result exceeded his expectations. Even if during the years of planning he had opportunity to place additional explosives, what difference does it make now? He is dead and we have exacted our pound of flesh a ten times over.

Its time to let go and move on.

Write4U - 27 March 2012 06:00 PM

Did you add the weight of all the tiolets and urinals? And desks, filecabinets, safes, computers, printers, furniture, etc, etc?  How much more hundreds of tons of weight existed within the building that wasn’t there when it was built?

IMO, there are just too many unknown variables. The main point is that it happened and there was an identified cause which set the events in motion. You cannot seperate these events and look for the possibility that under normal circumstance individual events could not have happened.

I have seen this EXCUSE for throwing out information before and before and before.  But the STEEL had to be designed to support the weight of all of the things you are listing plus the concrete.  That is encompassed when I say “skyscrapers have to hold themselves up”.  Just because I use the term “tons of steel” does not mean I am forgetting the strength of the steel.  The reason the amount of steel had to increase down the building was to INCREASE THE STRENGTH to support greater weight.  That is why I emphasise DISTRIBUTION.

If anything those plumbing fixtures do raise more questions:

Based on building size and occupancy, the requisite number of porcelain plumbing fixtures for rest rooms would have exceeded 50,000. With one exception, a fragment of an individual filing cabinet, debris from the towers contained virtually no individual pieces of any furniture, draperies, carpeting, computer equipment or plumbing fixtures from non-burning floors. Debris which did contain barely recognizable furniture and fixture components were literally fused together with steel rebars.

http://www.the-office.com/disclosureproject-1.htm

[4/13/12=12822]
[6/25/12=13554]
[8/24/12=13998]
[9/22/12=14206]
psik