9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
It's amazing... really. So, you go off and make your claims. Then, someone comes along and refutes those claims, shows the errors, shows the problem with your assumptions (You don't understand basic physics much less the complex stuff), shows the red herrings, the actual physics etc.
You get quiet for a short time while you seem to get into a switcher, shunt all the cars full of evidence and reality off into storage houses, then come back and start the whole damn thing over again as if none of it ever happened. You repeat the same stupidity and when people get tired of repeating themselves and don't answer- you chalk it up as a win because you "proved they didn't know the answer."
How clearly dishonest you are is just one of many things you're refusing to acknowledge.
Yes.
Such brilliant scientific individuals. Insects do not have lungs. They cannot force air into and out of their bodies. But because they have such small bodies closer to the molecular level they can depend more on diffusion which is the random movement of
INDIVIDUAL MOLECULES
http://insects.about.com/od/morphology/f/breathing.htm
DUH, it's physics.
Lots of people get through physics classes by memorizing and not understanding but many of them believe they are the same thing.
psik
Yes, but- Individual molecules?
Insects simply are not that small.
By that wording, humans breathe in individual molecules.
Technically, you might claim some truth to it. But the wording is absurd and strongly suggestive that he that used such wording is trying to appear more knowledgeable than he actually is.
Insects simply are not that small.
By that wording, humans breathe in individual molecules.
Technically, you might claim some truth to it. But the wording is absurd and strongly suggestive that he that used such wording is trying to appear more knowledgeable than he actually is.
You've shown you have a problem understanding how scale works before with modeling. Now again...from the point of view of molecules, humans and insects are about the same size. Atomic levels are much, much smaller than anything on the visible scale. They make amoebas seem huge.
So you explain diffusion without pointing out how individual molecules bounce off each other in a random fashion resulting in high densities of molecular types, like carbon dioxide, moving to areas of lower density involving the motion of billions of individual molecules. We can't use such a system because we are too big and complex.
The diffusion of individual molecules within a gas
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986rgd..conf..400B
psik
Last edited:
I never said anything about tracking individual molecules. It is not my fault that you prefer to jump to stupid conclusions as part of your concept of winning a debate. I already said bringing up animate objects in this discussion was idiotic. But it deos not change the fact that billions of "individual molecules" bounce off each other in the process of diffusion in order for an ant to breathe and that would not work in an ant the size of a dog so the analogy is absurd.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986rgd..conf..400B
psik
Perhaps you should actually, you know, look at it rather than just searching through it. You might learn something.
It's theoretically possible. He could build a model of the WTC out of peanut butter and cheese sticks and learn something about microbiology, for example.
billvon
I keep trying to tell everyone, Pasta is the key to understanding physics. Where do you think string theory came from if not the musings of some physicist contemplating Mozzarella cheese as it stretches? It's all connected to His Noodley Goodness.
Grumpy
I keep trying to tell everyone, Pasta is the key to understanding physics. Where do you think string theory came from if not the musings of some physicist contemplating Mozzarella cheese as it stretches? It's all connected to His Noodley Goodness.
Grumpy
I learned the NIST never specified the total for the concrete or said anything about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.
It was just a matter of searching for what to read. Most of the NCSTAR1 report is a waste of time.
Another thing those searches showed was that they duplicated the same information many times. The exact same paragraph can appear in three or four different places in the report. It bulks up the report but does not contribute more info. And that was just on what I searched for. How many duplicates would there be for things I never searched on. But how could they not wonder about the total amount of concrete if they provided that data on the steel? Especially when PR info about the world famous buildings from before 9/11 said there was 425,000 cubic yards. That early info even agreed on the amount of steel.
Very peculiar.
psik
As has been covered- repeatedly by many people, This Is A Red Herring.
You say it over and over and over again, basically throwing shit on a wall and hoping it sticks.
It ain't gonna.
Answer to the words in bold found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
billvon
I keep trying to tell everyone, Pasta is the key to understanding physics. Where do you think string theory came from if not the musings of some physicist contemplating Mozzarella cheese as it stretches? It's all connected to His Noodley Goodness.
Grumpy
Pfft. Another religious fanatic.
psikeyhackr said:
Moment of inertia is an intrinsic property of an object based on its shape and density (or distribution of mass). It accounts for the aggregate of inertias of all point masses about a chosen center of rotation:
When applied over a continuum (or nearly so, the particles in most objects are close enough to a continuum) it takes the integral form:
and from this we can derive the standard formulas structural engineers learn solve in their freshman year. For example, a uniform rod of length L and mass m, I = mL[sup]2[/sup] / 12, in rotation about its center has moment of inertia:
whereas, for the rotation about its endpoint, I = mL[sup]2[/sup] / 3:
You were attempting to address rotation of the collapsing structure by referencing its center of mass, which is meaningless. You actually meant to say the moment of inertia was too large for any rotation to occur.
In order to learn how to quantify your claim, you would need to learn how to calculate the moment of inertia for a rectangular prism. I'll leave that to you since you're the student here.
However, you will have to choose an axis of rotation. Furthermore, you will have to account for the rotation of each member of the structure as beams bent and shattered, and columns toppled. The axis became a failing network in torsion.
You can test your claims by erecting a plastic canopy on four tall poles secured by 4 anchored guy ropes in 90° increments of tension. Place a grommet at each corner of the canopy, and pass a screw through each grommet, into a threaded hole in the upright. Secure the bottom of each pole to a anchored ball joint. Set fire to the ropes and watch what happens. Did the structure rotate upon collapse? Explain. And explain why it rotated about its massless center.
When you begin to recognize the function of struts and beams in an integrated structure, you will identify a lot of your bad assumptions and lack of science. In fact, let me give you a checklist of issues you've ignored:
(1) How do struts and beams react to static forces placed on columns?
(2) What causes torsion as a structure comes apart?
(3) What is the effect of heat on the strength of steel?
(4) What is the effect of heat on concrete?
(5) What structural features does a deck contribute, and what reactions does it exhibit?
(6) For concrete and steel under stress and strain, what happens at high temperatures?
BTW: the word I was looking for was "spalling". Try using it in a sentence, for example: "Concrete subjected to high temperatures exhibits explosive spalling."
What is the effect of QUANTITY and CONDUCTIVITY on the TIME it takes to raise the CORE temperature of the steel?
The steel on the 81st floor of the south tower had to be strong enough to support another 29 stories. So how thick was the steel? How many tons of steel were there? How did conductivity affect this heating? Even if the fire reached 1100 degrees F how long would it take the steel to weaken? And why didn't this heating steel sag and slowly lower the structure above rather than suddenly give way?
People who have decided to BELIEVE in collapse can simply ignore such obvious questions.
The south tower came down less than one hour after impact so why isn't everyone wondering how the steel heated so fast?
And that does not even raise the issue of how the top 29 stories tilted 22 degrees so quickly. And then they don't ask about the center of gravity at all.
Scientific idiocy!
No I was not. I never said where the center of rotation was. Grumpy said the center of rotation was at the center of gravity. But he has never specified where the center of gravity was along the height of the tilted top 29 stories. Here is a video supposedly demonstrating the center of rotation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtmQXQJcMw
It says nothing about the center of gravity.
But the moment of inertia does not explain how all of the columns could be sheared regardless of where the center of rotation and center of gravity were.
psik
Last edited:
Probably a lot, since it's code to put some type of fire INSULATION onto such support beams. The impact and explosions blew much of that off, so you answer it, do you think they were more conductive of heat than before?
There's plenty of charts and tables on the internet. Look it up.
It did. Look at video right before collapse. The rest of the tower was increasingly having to hold more of the weight as the strength of the affected area dropped. So you have both, the sagging IN THE VIDEOS, and then the collapse as the weight exceeds what can be held up.
I believe in collapse. I saw it live. I'm sure you're not implying that they didn't collapse.
ROFL
I notice you didn't quote this part:
Like I am going to give damn what you say when you hand me this crap:
When the specific information about the steel in the WTC is not available and those charts and tables are useless when we don't know the thickness of the steel under the conditions we are discussing.
And you don't have a shred of evidence about how much insulation might have been removed due to impact. That is just another made up rationalization.
My thought experiment in post #250
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...n-inside-job&p=2980742&viewfull=1#post2980742
of taking out 5 stories eliminates all need for discussion of fire and impact damage. But I have noticed that people on multiple websites ignore any discussion of that.
psik
- Status