9/11 was an inside job

[psikeyhackr]

And unfortunately, there are some who believe in it. And they do pose a threat to not only political stability in their respective countries, but the bigger threat is the decimation of absolute quackery. And with these people, you can present the facts as much as you want, they won't believe in it.

Why not just present the fact of a reasonable physical model of the north tower that can completely collapse?

In 1940 a professor at the University of Washington built a 1:200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 4 months and it had to be in a wind tunnel.

But in 12 years we don't have a physical model of the north tower showing how the top 14 stories could fall and destroy everything below. We don't even have trustworthy data specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. How would anyone build a good model if they wanted to?

But then where are physicists and structural engineers demanding the data?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=274838

Understanding physics is a threat.

psik

 

[CptBork]

Why not just present the fact of a reasonable physical model of the north tower that can completely collapse?

There's a zillion of them, but you simply label all the models that collapse as unreasonable, that's why.

In 1940 a professor at the University of Washington built a 1:200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 4 months and it had to be in a wind tunnel.

But in 12 years we don't have a physical model of the north tower showing how the top 14 stories could fall and destroy everything below. We don't even have trustworthy data specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. How would anyone build a good model if they wanted to?

Right off the bat, the fact that you think material physics and stresses can be accurately scaled down in a miniature model shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Understanding physics is a threat.

psik

No, it would actually serve you well to learn some physics for a change, and it would serve society better to have one less ignoramus to deal with.

 

[psikeyhackr]

There's a zillion of them, but you simply label all the models that collapse as unreasonable, that's why.

Oh really?

Where is the video with the data on the distribution of mass down the structure?

Is having that data unreasonable? Doesn't the structure have to hold itself up?

psik

 

[CptBork]

Oh really?

Where is the video with the data on the distribution of mass down the structure?

Is having that data unreasonable? Doesn't the structure have to hold itself up?

psik

Why does it all have to come in a video? Don't like reading through boring technical reports? Why don't you ask all those engineers who modeled the collapse where they got their data? You haven't bothered to do that, have you?

And as for the physics, would you like to put forth a physics argument as to why a total collapse wasn't possible, so I can fix your misconception for you right here?

 

[billvon]

Why does it all have to come in a video?

There are a lot of people who grew up on TV, and don''t really have the attention span for reading.

 

[river]

A good movie to see about 911 is the Zeitgeist: The movie , on Netflix

Which I also suggested on the religious thread

They both tie in together

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why does it all have to come in a video? Don't like reading through boring technical reports? Why don't you ask all those engineers who modeled the collapse where they got their data? You haven't bothered to do that, have you?

And as for the physics, would you like to put forth a physics argument as to why a total collapse wasn't possible, so I can fix your misconception for you right here?

I have never seen Gregory Urich's spreadsheet discussed in any video. But his speredsheet does not have a column specifying the height. But if you compute the heights by dividing the Potential Energy by the Mass then his roof is lower than the top 10 stories.

I should have said video where distribution of mass is discussed.

Here is Urich's spreadsheet:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lqmpxAGIDzYoZSfPg&sig2=HrKtSkEc9j3-vsP1cSLi8g

examine it yourself.

This is a society that bombards people with intellectual bullsh!t from morons then accuses you of being lazy when you get tired of wading through the bullsh!t. There are always more morons who think they are intelligent to throw bullsh!t.

psik

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

But in 12 years we don't have a physical model of the north tower showing how the top 14 stories could fall and destroy everything below.

Gravity does not scale, an ant can pick up 10 times it's own weight, you cannot. So a scale model in this case will tell you nothing. So what NIST did is construct FULL SIZE sections of the structure and subjected them to instrumented tests. The data thus gained was put through finite element analysis(it's how we design things today)and the outcome compared with the known facts. The buildings fell due to damage and fires caused by being hit by 250,000 lb aircraft travelling at near 500 mph, twice, on the same day, period. If there had been no fires those buildings would likely have survived to be repaired, but the fires softened enough of the structural steel that the rest failed catastrophically and once the top blocks fell 12 feet they exceeded any remaining strength the intact structure still had, and two very strong steel beams falling past each other have no remaining resistance to collapse, no matter how strong they are. The floors themselves had no structural function, they might as well not have been there for all the resistance to collapse they had.

We don't even have trustworthy data specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. How would anyone build a good model if they wanted to?

Bull. The NIST reports list all the specs on those buildings, you just haven't bothered to look because it evaporates this belief you have that they are hiding something. You don't want to know, just like our idiot politicians today. And no accurate scale model is possible. NIST made the best models it is possible to make, full sized ones. By examining the reactions of full sized steel, full sized office fires and computer models based on those tests using the best (and proprietary to a private company)FEA program the most likely narrative of the events is reached. You won't do better than that, ever.

Grumpy

 

[Maggnum]

psikeyhackr



Gravity does not scale, an ant can pick up 10 times it's own weight, you cannot. So a scale model in this case will tell you nothing. So what NIST did is construct FULL SIZE sections of the structure and subjected them to instrumented tests. The data thus gained was put through finite element analysis(it's how we design things today)and the outcome compared with the known facts. The buildings fell due to damage and fires caused by being hit by 250,000 lb aircraft travelling at near 500 mph, twice, on the same day, period. If there had been no fires those buildings would likely have survived to be repaired, but the fires softened enough of the structural steel that the rest failed catastrophically and once the top blocks fell 12 feet they exceeded any remaining strength the intact structure still had, and two very strong steel beams falling past each other have no remaining resistance to collapse, no matter how strong they are. The floors themselves had no structural function, they might as well not have been there for all the resistance to collapse they had.



Bull. The NIST reports list all the specs on those buildings, you just haven't bothered to look because it evaporates this belief you have that they are hiding something. You don't want to know, just like our idiot politicians today. And no accurate scale model is possible. NIST made the best models it is possible to make, full sized ones. By examining the reactions of full sized steel, full sized office fires and computer models based on those tests using the best (and proprietary to a private company)FEA program the most likely narrative of the events is reached. You won't do better than that, ever.

Grumpy

Well said, an excellent summary of the NIST modelling and findings!

 

[GeoffP]

psikeyhackr

Gravity does not scale, an ant can pick up 10 times it's own weight, you cannot.

Yeah, that was one of the more bizarre things about this argument.

 

[Kittamaru]

Oh really?

Where is the video with the data on the distribution of mass down the structure?

Is having that data unreasonable? Doesn't the structure have to hold itself up?

psik

The problem was actually the way the buildings were designed - around supporting pillars running the height of the building that each floor was then, in essence, strapped/lashed/riveted to. The problem came in that, once the first few floors gave way, the increased weight, and indeed the kinetic energy of an entire floor of steel, concrete, and other various items smashing down on the floor below started a dominio-like chain - after all, each floor was meant to hold up the stresses of itself and the intended contents of such a building - the floors weren't designed to bear a weight load of several floors together.

 

[CptBork]

I have never seen Gregory Urich's spreadsheet discussed in any video. But his speredsheet does not have a column specifying the height. But if you compute the heights by dividing the Potential Energy by the Mass then his roof is lower than the top 10 stories.

Dividing potential energy by mass gives you gravity acceleration x height, so you still have to divide by the value of gravity acceleration (g), in appropriate units. I checked the first row and it looks fine to me.

This is a society that bombards people with intellectual bullsh!t from morons then accuses you of being lazy when you get tired of wading through the bullsh!t. There are always more morons who think they are intelligent to throw bullsh!t.

Why don't you demonstrate you can do 9th grade physics first before calling everyone who disagrees with you a moron? Thank goodness we live in a world where people like you grumble all day about falling towers instead of being tasked with actually designing and building them.

 

[billvon]

This is a society that bombards people with intellectual bullsh!t from morons then accuses you of being lazy when you get tired of wading through the bullsh!t. There are always more morons who think they are intelligent to throw bullsh!t.

Yes, there are. You are a prime example of this.

 

[quinnsong]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
This is a society that bombards people with intellectual bullsh!t from morons then accuses you of being lazy when you get tired of wading through the bullsh!t. There are always more morons who think they are intelligent to throw bullsh!t.

Translation-Why do you guys make me seem like a moron?

 

[Gremmie]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
This is a society that bombards people with intellectual bullsh!t from morons then accuses you of being lazy when you get tired of wading through the bullsh!t. There are always more morons who think they are intelligent to throw bullsh!t.

Translation-Why do you guys make me seem like a moron?

That about sums it up... Sigh...

 

[Aqueous Id]

Just as I read the complaint the bunny hit his head.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
This is a society that bombards people with intellectual bullsh!t from morons then accuses you of being lazy when you get tired of wading through the bullsh!t. There are always more morons who think they are intelligent to throw bullsh!t.

Translation-Why do you guys make me seem like a moron?

Exactly. It's like noticing that the 20,000 volt wire doesn't bother you too much until you come into contact with the ground.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Just as I read the complaint the bunny hit his head.

Exactly. It's like noticing that the 20,000 volt wire doesn't bother you too much until you come into contact with the ground.

Oh sure, let's select something that is a bigger deal globally than 9/11.

Some time ago I read there were 800,000,000 cars in the world. But machines wear out and therefore depreciate. If the purchase of the cars gets added to the GDP of various nations then why isn't the depreciation subtracted from somewhere?

In 1995 there were 200,000,000 cars in the United States. If there was $1,500 in depreciation per car per year that would amount to $300,000,000,000 in depreciation per year. That is a bit more than the cost of all of the damage on 9/11 even if you add $5,000,000 in insurance for each victim. But that does not count the depreciation of all of the air conditioners, televisions and all other durable consumer goods.

Anyone that wants to can search the Internet for what economist have to say about the depreciation of durable consumer goods. But buy stuff and they add it to GDP.

So if you consider the Demand Side Depreciation for the entire planet for the last 50 years, which our economists ignore, then what happened on 9/11 is pretty trivial. But our economists can't suggest something as simple as making 700 year old double-entry accounting mandatory in our schools.

So I guess it is not surprising that we can't resolve grade a school physics problem in 12 years either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZTfBgf-0U

Like why didn't those top 12 stories collapse after their drop in 1985? But we are supposed to believe 14 stories could destroy 90 in the north tower in less than 30 seconds. And then this can't be tested experimentally in 12 years. Brilliant!

[45,889]
psik

 

[GeoffP]

So I guess it is not surprising that we can't resolve grade a school physics problem in 12 years either.

I think you mean that you can't resolve grade a school physics problem in 12 years.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think you mean that you can't resolve grade a school physics problem in 12 years.

Oh yeah, like you did it without accurate data on the distributions of mass of steel and concrete down the towers.

That is the hilarious part about it. No one can do it without that data. It is called the Conservation of Momentum.

But after 12 years even people with degrees in physics would look ridiculous asking about it. Why didn't they ask in 2002?

psik

 

[Aqueous Id]

Oh yeah, like you did it without accurate data on the distributions of mass of steel and concrete down the towers.

That is the hilarious part about it. No one can do it without that data. It is called the Conservation of Momentum.

But after 12 years even people with degrees in physics would look ridiculous asking about it. Why didn't they ask in 2002?

psik

Because in 2002 your Creationist buddies were handing out cigars, secure in the knowledge that from here on out, everything you guys sell will be fully steeped in anti-science propaganda.

See ya/wouldn't wanna be ya. *Ignore*