9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
Why is there not a "Thanks" button on this freaking forum?!
Psikey posted another one of his physics demostrations....check it out! :
psikeyhackr
You're wrong about almost everything you post. There is no "Newtonian Physics", Einstein replaced Newton almost 100 years ago by showing that Newton was only an approximate solution for certain conditions. And evolution is and has been tested for over 150 years. Like Birthers and Creationists, Troothers believe what they believe DESPITE reality, not because of it.
Throw 5000 gallons of JetA in an office building(coincidently setting all the paper, carpet, desks and other fuels on fire as well)and you will find out(again, we already know). The fires were multi floor and spread to a significant portion of the acre sized area of all of them. Steel in the middle could not possibly radiate or conduct that heat fast enough, and it only takes enough steel on one level to initiate collapse. Add in the steel that had no fire protection due to impact damage and the steel will get hot enough to lose strength, leading to collapse. It happened twice on the same day.
Yeah, it only got struck by debris when a 110 story building collapsed right next to it, starting fires that burned for hours, unfought as the firefighters were "pulled" from it's vicinity because the firecheif thought the building was going to collapse(transits measured a significant tilt hours before it collapsed).
Were you always this...slow? How do those short buses ride, the short wheelbase would tend to give a choppy ride.
Moving a multi-million ton building "only" 15 inches is, as Joe Biden so succinctly put it, "A Big F---ing Deal". It represents a huge amount of energy, energy dissipated by breaking columns and frame members.
Grumpy
You're wrong about almost everything you post. There is no "Newtonian Physics", Einstein replaced Newton almost 100 years ago by showing that Newton was only an approximate solution for certain conditions. And evolution is and has been tested for over 150 years. Like Birthers and Creationists, Troothers believe what they believe DESPITE reality, not because of it.
Throw 5000 gallons of JetA in an office building(coincidently setting all the paper, carpet, desks and other fuels on fire as well)and you will find out(again, we already know). The fires were multi floor and spread to a significant portion of the acre sized area of all of them. Steel in the middle could not possibly radiate or conduct that heat fast enough, and it only takes enough steel on one level to initiate collapse. Add in the steel that had no fire protection due to impact damage and the steel will get hot enough to lose strength, leading to collapse. It happened twice on the same day.
Yeah, it only got struck by debris when a 110 story building collapsed right next to it, starting fires that burned for hours, unfought as the firefighters were "pulled" from it's vicinity because the firecheif thought the building was going to collapse(transits measured a significant tilt hours before it collapsed).
Were you always this...slow? How do those short buses ride, the short wheelbase would tend to give a choppy ride.
Moving a multi-million ton building "only" 15 inches is, as Joe Biden so succinctly put it, "A Big F---ing Deal". It represents a huge amount of energy, energy dissipated by breaking columns and frame members.
Grumpy
I agree 9/11 was an inside job. Al Quida was inside the USA.
Wow, you are really out of arguments, aren't you? You've reached the stage where you are arguing over the definition of words, which is a sure sign that you have nothing left.
Perhaps you could claim that the common meaning of "collapse" is wrong.
billvon
psikeyhackr never had any arguments in the first place, outside of his "I don't understand it, so it can't be true." attitude. He probably needs to go back to breakfornews with killtown and fintan, they think he's a genius(which, compared to christophera with his idiotic concrete core claims, he is). As long as he is playing in that children's sandbox he gets plenty of ego stroking for his delusions, it's just when he interrupts the adult's conversation at a real science forum that he is called out on his idiotic non-sense.
I went through there with a machete a few years ago, they couldn't stand the heat so they banned me. No dissonance is allowed in their echo chamber. They actually think that explosives for demo being built in to the building, that it wasn't planes that hit the towers or that huge lasers from space(among other frankly sub-human logic)are valid concepts and discuss them "seriously". It's a runaway feedback loop situation, nothing is too nutball that they won't believe it. psikeyhackr has actually been throttling back a great deal on this forum so we won't just go straight for the restraints and the padded room solution.
I don't recommend their site for other than anthropological studies on just how stupid a crowd of stupid people can be, you already have Fox News, what more do you need? But there are some resources there about WTC if you can stand sorting the wheat from all that chaff, just look at the pretty pictures, don't believe a single word they say about them.
Grumpy
psikeyhackr never had any arguments in the first place, outside of his "I don't understand it, so it can't be true." attitude. He probably needs to go back to breakfornews with killtown and fintan, they think he's a genius(which, compared to christophera with his idiotic concrete core claims, he is). As long as he is playing in that children's sandbox he gets plenty of ego stroking for his delusions, it's just when he interrupts the adult's conversation at a real science forum that he is called out on his idiotic non-sense.
I went through there with a machete a few years ago, they couldn't stand the heat so they banned me. No dissonance is allowed in their echo chamber. They actually think that explosives for demo being built in to the building, that it wasn't planes that hit the towers or that huge lasers from space(among other frankly sub-human logic)are valid concepts and discuss them "seriously". It's a runaway feedback loop situation, nothing is too nutball that they won't believe it. psikeyhackr has actually been throttling back a great deal on this forum so we won't just go straight for the restraints and the padded room solution.
I don't recommend their site for other than anthropological studies on just how stupid a crowd of stupid people can be, you already have Fox News, what more do you need? But there are some resources there about WTC if you can stand sorting the wheat from all that chaff, just look at the pretty pictures, don't believe a single word they say about them.
Grumpy
ROFL
Yeah, at less than 1% of light speed the difference between Einsteinian and Newtonian calculations are SO GREAT! It completely changes the design of skyscrapers.
SciForum to the rescue:
http://www.sciforums.com/Newton-vs-Einstein-t-6684.html
300 feet away is RIGHT NEXT TO IT. Oh yeah, you are using Einsteinian Physics. Things get shorter near light speed.
psik
Actually that is a relevant point. A "collapse" where the supports are crushed from above would be quite different from a "collapse" where the supports are destroyed by something else below. The "collapse" times should be very different.
But then people don't even want accurate data on the distribution of steel below that did the supporting so that makes it difficult to make the comparison after the fact. Can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy. Curious that!
So scientific!
psik
There ya go. When logic fails, obfuscation remains.
And some people can't even be bothered to read the data available. And oddly enough they claim that others are poorly informed.
psikeyhackr
That is simply wrong, Newtonian Physics was only an approximation of reality, there is only one physics and Newton is NOT included.
Neither is what happened on 911. For the most part the outer frames were not crushed, they fell over in long strips when their support was removed. The same goes for about half of the columns in the core. The point about the floors is that when they failed after the initiation they removed any ability of the core or perimeter frame to apply their strength and generate any resistance at all. Large sections of both the core and perimeter frame stood after the rest of the rubble had hit the ground, but soon fell because they could not stand on their own.
It was a 1300 ft tall building, you know.
That's WTC 7 on the left.
That's WTC 7 being hit by debris.
That's about the best photo in existence of the damage. That's a mean gash.
That is simply wrong, Newtonian Physics was only an approximation of reality, there is only one physics and Newton is NOT included.
Neither is what happened on 911. For the most part the outer frames were not crushed, they fell over in long strips when their support was removed. The same goes for about half of the columns in the core. The point about the floors is that when they failed after the initiation they removed any ability of the core or perimeter frame to apply their strength and generate any resistance at all. Large sections of both the core and perimeter frame stood after the rest of the rubble had hit the ground, but soon fell because they could not stand on their own.
It was a 1300 ft tall building, you know.
That's WTC 7 on the left.
That's WTC 7 being hit by debris.
That's about the best photo in existence of the damage. That's a mean gash.
Here's the best assessment of the WTC damage.
A closer view taken by a firefighter.
[video=youtube;ukO3hENZ9zA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Raw news footage from BEHIND WTC 7 before it collapsed. If that kind of destruction was behind 7, how could the building itself NOT be hit?
Grumpy
LOL
Here is a graph of the tau factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
At 10% of light speed the deviation is trivial. At less than 1% who cares. Like civil engineers are going to do the unnecessary calculations for the sake of Einsteinian physics when the difference is certainly smaller than their normal error margins.
psik
And consequently it would take 9 seconds for a mass to fall from the top. So that is how much time a mass had to cover the 300 feet to WTC 7. So the minimum horizontal velocity for such a mass was 23 mph. So what could give a mass heavy enough to do significant damage sufficient horizontal velocity to eventually bring down a 47 story building?
Your diagram shows 17 columns across the 300 foot face. So how did fire and debris damage make 17 columns give way simultaneously so the roof line could stay so straight as it fell?
psik
psikeyhackr
Wait, weren't you trying to argue the center of mass in Tower 2 should have moved sideways over 100 feet in under one second?(IE toppled off to the side). Building 7 did not fall down all at once, it fell apart and only the final collapse was seen in the videos.
Building 7 likely had a catastrophic failure of only one column(79). This triggered a progressive failure of the rest of the building. Here is a Structure Magazine article that explains the whole thing(well, to those that actually read such things instead of word search them)...
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Grumpy
Wait, weren't you trying to argue the center of mass in Tower 2 should have moved sideways over 100 feet in under one second?(IE toppled off to the side). Building 7 did not fall down all at once, it fell apart and only the final collapse was seen in the videos.
Building 7 likely had a catastrophic failure of only one column(79). This triggered a progressive failure of the rest of the building. Here is a Structure Magazine article that explains the whole thing(well, to those that actually read such things instead of word search them)...
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Grumpy
Let's see you provide a link to where I said what the center of mass SHOULD HAVE DONE.
As I recall I simply pointed out that we did not know where it was and that our EXPERTS have not been discussing it. But if it did move that far then it should not have gotten support from the core any longer. If the EXPERTS don't tell us where it is then we can't know. But how can honest experts not bring up the subject in TEN YEARS?
So apparently your concept of debate is putting words in other people's mouths and than saying they are wrong.
The videos of the WTC7 collapse may only show the exterior but it was still 300 feet wide across the back and that roofline did stay remarkably horizontal throughot the visible fall. So how could fire or debris from WTC1 make for such simultaneous elimination of support across that length?
psik
psikeyhackr
It's a non-issue. It's like asking what color the sky is. The center of gravity of the top mass will not move anywhere without some force to move it. No such force existed. Therefore the center of gravity remained exactly where it started until the top block dissolved into rubble. When the top of the block tilted one way, the bottom of the block shifted sideways in the opposite direction, shearing the connections between it and the rest of the building, turning into rubble in the process. The center of gravity dropped straight down. The experts don't discuss this because it is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject. The experts rarely discuss the fact that water is wet, for the same reason. It's just plain physics(elementary physics at that).
You didn't bother to read my cite. The building collapsed in several stages, the last stage(the fall of the wall)was triggered when the debris from the first stages knocked it sideways at the bottom. That's the same thing demo guys do to a building, they use explosives instead of hundreds of thousands of pounds of rubble, but the results look similar. The rear wall was draped in large pieces across the top of rest of the building, it had to have fallen last.
Grumpy
It's a non-issue. It's like asking what color the sky is. The center of gravity of the top mass will not move anywhere without some force to move it. No such force existed. Therefore the center of gravity remained exactly where it started until the top block dissolved into rubble. When the top of the block tilted one way, the bottom of the block shifted sideways in the opposite direction, shearing the connections between it and the rest of the building, turning into rubble in the process. The center of gravity dropped straight down. The experts don't discuss this because it is so obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject. The experts rarely discuss the fact that water is wet, for the same reason. It's just plain physics(elementary physics at that).
You didn't bother to read my cite. The building collapsed in several stages, the last stage(the fall of the wall)was triggered when the debris from the first stages knocked it sideways at the bottom. That's the same thing demo guys do to a building, they use explosives instead of hundreds of thousands of pounds of rubble, but the results look similar. The rear wall was draped in large pieces across the top of rest of the building, it had to have fallen last.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy-
While I understand and sympathize with the urge to debunk this Truther nonsense, the fact of the matter is that engaging with psikeyhackr only encourages him. This is because it implies that his views merit debunking in the first place. In fact, he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the engineering or dynamical physics involved, so what he does or does not think about those subjects is of no interest to anybody. There is nothing you could ever say that will convince him he is wrong - and he is depending on your willingness to imply that his ideas even merit disproving in the first place to feed his persona.
I suggest you ignore him, ideally, or if not stick to sneering dismissiveness and condescension. Most definitely do you get into detailed technical arguments - that just implies that he is a serious, scientific person that has only a technical disagreement with the mainstream theories. This is not the case - he is unserious and anti-scientific, and the nature of his dispute with reality is a personal question of ego and self-image which is not fixable through scientific discussion of skyscraper dynamics. By enabling him to engage in this way, you are effectively entrenching the whole persona in question.
Thanks for your consideration.
While I understand and sympathize with the urge to debunk this Truther nonsense, the fact of the matter is that engaging with psikeyhackr only encourages him. This is because it implies that his views merit debunking in the first place. In fact, he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the engineering or dynamical physics involved, so what he does or does not think about those subjects is of no interest to anybody. There is nothing you could ever say that will convince him he is wrong - and he is depending on your willingness to imply that his ideas even merit disproving in the first place to feed his persona.
I suggest you ignore him, ideally, or if not stick to sneering dismissiveness and condescension. Most definitely do you get into detailed technical arguments - that just implies that he is a serious, scientific person that has only a technical disagreement with the mainstream theories. This is not the case - he is unserious and anti-scientific, and the nature of his dispute with reality is a personal question of ego and self-image which is not fixable through scientific discussion of skyscraper dynamics. By enabling him to engage in this way, you are effectively entrenching the whole persona in question.
Thanks for your consideration.
I once heard someone over at JREF give an analogy to try to explain this. I'm not sure if it's totally accurate, but it gets the idea across.
Let's imagine we have a bowling ball...for ease of calculation we will say this bowling ball weighs 100 pounds (that's one hell of a bowling ball!) This bowling ball is suspended by 10 strings. Each string has a breaking strength of 15 pounds. With 10 strings, the 100 pound load is equally distributed between the strings, so that each one supports 10 pounds. Take a pair of scissors and cut one string. The 100 pound load is instantly redistributed among the 9 remaining strings so that each one now supports 11.11 pounds. Well within it's tolerance. Cut another. Now each of the remaining 8 strings support 12.5 pounds. Cut another. Now each of the 7 strings is supporting 14.28 pounds. Really close to it's breaking strength...they are barely holding on.
Now cut one more final string. This will make the 6 remaining strings encounter 16.66 pounds of weight each...well beyond their breaking strength...so the remaining 6 strings will all fail virtually simultaneously and the bowling ball will fall. That's what happened in building 7
I've been discussing 9/11 with psikey for many years now, on several different boards. It's a hopeless cause. It's why I've pretty much stuck to ridicule, rather than waste my time with debunking. I know he can take it, so I don't feel too bad.
I.E:
- Status