63 of 63
63
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 09 May 2017 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 931 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  600
Joined  2016-12-24

But Conspiracies & Dumb Analogies is all you got here.

psikeyhackr - 08 May 2017 11:57 PM

Is it a “Conspiracy Theory” that you can’t find the quantity of concrete that was in the Twin Towers in the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report?

I’ll bet you’ve not read the 10,000 pages.

Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (500,000 tons). The interior design of the World Trade Center contains 240 vertical steel columns, which were called the Vierendeel trusses. These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

Eric Chen—2004
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

Oh you can also subtitle this thread How To Ignore Facts Inconvenient To Your Pet Theory, or Refusal to Learn From New Information.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2017 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 932 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 09 May 2017 07:42 AM

I’ll bet you’ve not read the 10,000 pages.

My are you brilliant.

I am pretty sure I have mentioned that I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report.  So it is easy to search on the words “concrete” and “steel”.  Concrete is used more than 3,000 times.  I read every paragraph using concrete.  And every paragraph using steel.  The quantity of steel is mentioned 3 times.  But I have been talking about this for more than 6 years.  Not one person has quoted the NIST report and said where in the report the quantity of concrete is mentioned.

So you can find data that was available before 9/11.  That just indicates that it is even more strange that it is not in the NCSTAR1 report.

The NIST report says there were two types of concrete, 110 lb/cuft and 150 lb/cuft

Therefore specifying the volume does not specify the weight, just upper and lower limits.

So your sloppy argument just shows that you operate at the same level as the NIST.

I searched for “center of gravity” and “center of mass” also.  More peculiar results.

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2017 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 933 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7469
Joined  2009-02-26

psik said,
These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

This reminds me of the big sailing races, with 10 million dollar yachts.  They use Titanium for all load bearing structures, such as masts and booms. But instead of allowing for margins of error, they built these boats as light as possible (for speed), right to the estimated sufficient load limits.

An engineer once said; “we don’t need to built things right, we just need to build them right enough”

Well during an unexpected gust of wind this 10 million dollar boat broke in half and sank within several minutes.
When dealing with too many mathematics, any analytical conclusions have to be viewed with skepticism. Can anyone predict the weather or the wave movement of large bodies of water?

Is it not sufficient to say, we did not build this tower to withstand bombs, but to known natural structural stresses.

[ Edited: 09 May 2017 07:38 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 934 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  600
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 09 May 2017 07:01 PM

My are you brilliant.

Let’s see those paragraphs!

As for brilliant;
How brilliant is it ignoring the physics of how structural loads are transferred in a high rise structure?
How brilliant is it building a model that if scaled up would have the top of the towers swaying by a couple hundred feet or more and claiming you’ve replicated the towers?
How brilliant is it being amazed that liquid on a floor would take a 90° turn when running into an elevator shaft?

fyi
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19163/P30/#231777

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 935 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 09 May 2017 07:33 PM

psik said,
These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

This reminds me of the big sailing races, with 10 million dollar yachts.  They use Titanium for all load bearing structures, such as masts and booms. But instead of allowing for margins of error, they built these boats as light as possible (for speed), right to the estimated sufficient load limits.

An engineer once said; “we don’t need to built things right, we just need to build them right enough”

Well during an unexpected gust of wind this 10 million dollar boat broke in half and sank within several minutes.
When dealing with too many mathematics, any analytical conclusions have to be viewed with skepticism. Can anyone predict the weather or the wave movement of large bodies of water?

Is it not sufficient to say, we did not build this tower to withstand bombs, but to known natural structural stresses.

I think you need to get your quotes straight.  I never said that.

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 12:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 936 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7469
Joined  2009-02-26

W4U said,

psik said,
These steel columns maintained the tower’s structure and helped to create an extremely “light"building.

This reminds me of the big sailing races, with 10 million dollar yachts.  They use Titanium for all load bearing structures, such as masts and booms. But instead of allowing for margins of error, they built these boats as light as possible (for speed), right to the estimated sufficient load limits.

An engineer once said; “we don’t need to built things right, we just need to build them right enough”


Well during an unexpected gust of wind this 10 million dollar boat broke in half and sank within several minutes.
When dealing with too many mathematics, any analytical conclusions have to be viewed with skepticism. Can anyone predict the weather or the wave movement of large bodies of water?

Is it not sufficient to say, we did not build this tower to withstand bombs, but to known natural structural stresses.

 

I think you need to get your quotes straight.  I never said that. psik

Aah, now I see why I attributed the quote to you. CC quoted it on page 931, and it looked like it was attributed to you. But noticing the link, it could be that CC quoted it from that website.  Nevertheless, what I posted is true.

There is video of the race and the total collapse of a 10 million dollar sail-boat during that race.
And the quote “making things *just* right, was from an engineer at a space testing facility and was in relation to the design of the Rover. 

My apologies for sloppy reading.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 937 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 May 2017 07:13 AM

[
As for brilliant;
How brilliant is it ignoring the physics of how structural loads are transferred in a high rise structure?


So you claim know but don’t ask about the distribution of steel in the building?  Didn’t the lower portion s have to support progressively more weight?

So how much steel was on level 5 compared to 105?

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2017 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 938 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3840
Joined  2014-06-20

Just what is it that are claiming happened, psikey? What is all this supposed to mean? That the jets didn’t actually bring down the towers and that it was “something else” that was responsible? What are you claiming that “something else” was? Who, what, when and where? Be specific. No more of your vague conspiract theories where you never identify who it is or how it happened. You seem able to investigate all sorts of things regarding the WTC buildings and how they couldn’t collapse from two jets crashing into them. Where are your precise answers as to what actually brought them down if it wasn’t the jets, who was behind it and exactly how it happened? You spend all your time trying to dismantle other people’s assessments, but you offer no evidence to the alternative theories you hold. You don’t even offer a solid theory as to who it might have been or how they might done it. Nobody can respond to your vague ideas without something to actually assess and investigate. Come on, come up with a detailed theory with evidence as to what you think happened or even could have happened. Give us something to chew on. So far you’ve offered nothing but vague speculations and blind alleys.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2017 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 939 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  543
Joined  2016-01-24
LoisL - 10 May 2017 11:24 PM

Just what is it that are claiming happened, psikey? What is all this supposed to mean? That the jets didn’t actually bring down the towers and that it was “something else” that was responsible? What are you claiming that “something else” was? Who, what, when and where? Be specific. No more of your vague conspiract theories where you never identify who it is or how it happened. You seem able to investigate all sorts of things regarding the WTC buildings and how they couldn’t collapse from two jets crashing into them. Where are your precise answers as to what actually brought them down if it wasn’t the jets, who was behind it and exactly how it happened? You spend all your time trying to dismantle other people’s assessments, but you offer no evidence to the alternative theories you hold. You don’t even offer a solid theory as to who it might have been or how they might done it. Nobody can respond to your vague ideas without something to actually assess and investigate. Come on, come up with a detailed theory with evidence as to what you think happened or even could have happened. Give us something to chew on. So far you’ve offered nothing but vague speculations and blind alleys.

That’s his whole point, he will never offer a plausible alternative explanation because there isn’t one.

The whole point is to keep this “discussion” going on forever due to all the “doubt” there is. Because exact information can’t be supplied on precisely how the towers failed then people like this who thrive on creating chaos will be there to stir things up endlessly.

Much of the evidence was destroyed in the massive violence in this disaster, giving a few sociopaths a chance to screw with other people’s head indefinitely. Think how much pain it must cause those who lost family in the attack to have it treated in this absolutely cynical manner.

What we can say with certainty is that massive airliners traveling at high speeds were intentionally flown into each tower causing severe physical damage. Intense fires that followed would have certainly weakened already damaged steel supports holding the towers up. They failed at the points of damage, the obvious cause of the collapses is the impact of the jets followed by very high temperature fires.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2017 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 940 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  2007-07-05
DougC - 12 May 2017 09:32 AM

That’s his whole point, he will never offer a plausible alternative explanation because there isn’t one.

Explosives are an alternative explanation.  You can find plenty of people claiming that and some providing what they regard as evidence.

I do not have it.

But pretending that not providing an alternative explanation is PROOF that aircraft impact and fire could make a 1360 ft building collapse in less tan 30 seconds is nonsense.

But government experts producing a 10,000 page report that not only does not explain the collapse but does not even specify the total amount of concrete is ridiculous.

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 941 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  600
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 12 May 2017 06:54 PM
DougC - 12 May 2017 09:32 AM

That’s his whole point, he will never offer a plausible alternative explanation because there isn’t one.

Explosives are an alternative explanation.  You can find plenty of people claiming that and some providing what they regard as evidence.

I do not have it.
psik

so why are you mentioning? 
Guess I can understand you not wanting to link to it.  I’ve stumbled on it myself.

Here’s what you think is perhaps worth entertaining.
The Rebar used to build the WTCs was coated with C4 way back during construction in the early 1970s.

An idea born of a fevered mind on so many levels I can’t fathom it.
But, the one thing I know for sure - it was someone who’s never ever actually worked with Rebar and Wet Concrete,
and the only ones that could believe something so maliciously-ignorant are likewise clueless of the most basic of construction physics.

This is’t not emotions speaking, it’s physics.

“The WTC Towers Were Built To Demolish, C4 Coated Rebar In Concrete ...”  nope not worth me linking to, google it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2017 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 942 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  2007-07-05

Common Ground Zero

WTC Specs; Official v Alternative Hypothesis

https://commongroundzero.quora.com/WTC-Specs-Official-v-Alternative-Hypothesis

psik

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
63 of 63
63