9/11 was an inside job

[psikeyhackr]

I would like you to provide some evidence that I cannot do algebra (interesting since I passed it in high school and have taken up to, and passed through, Calculus 3... never again though, ugh)

So you have built a perfect to-scale model of the twin towers and then rammed a to-scale aeroplane into it with burning fuel and all?

I would like to see some video evidence of this please.

The issue is whether or not the top portion, approximately 13% could fall straight and thoroughly destroy the lower 80%. Why it fell would be irrelevant.

So if a model was built such that 5 stories were completely missing, say 91 through 95, and the top 15 dropped through that distance then then if the lower structure came nowhere near complete destruction then that would settle it. I bet 40 stories or more would remain. Completely removing 5 stories would be more than aircraft impact and fire could have done in less than two hours. This would eliminate all of the idiotic arguments about how hot the fire got.

So after all of this time how do engineering schools explain not thinking of a test that simple.

But we would still have to have accurate distribution of mass data, it is not just a matter of scale. But my model was tested to be as weak as possible relative to the static load and that is not how skyscrapers are designed.

Sorry, that was supposed to be trigonometry!

psik

 

[CptBork]

I bet 40 stories or more would remain.

I bet you pulled that number out of your ass because it sounded good.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So if a model was built....

So after all of this time how do engineering schools explain not thinking of a test that simple.

But we would still have to have accurate distribution of mass data, it is not just a matter of scale. But my model was tested to be as weak as possible relative to the static load and that is not how skyscrapers are designed.

The explanation is that engineers understand engineering better than you do: It turns out, scaling a model is very difficult because geometry and strength do not scale together - not to mention flying it to the moon so you can scale gravity! Computer models are better, so they were used instead.

 

[Kittamaru]

The issue is whether or not the top portion, approximately 13% could fall straight and thoroughly destroy the lower 80%. Why it fell would be irrelevant.

So if a model was built such that 5 stories were completely missing, say 91 through 95, and the top 15 dropped through that distance then then if the lower structure came nowhere near complete destruction then that would settle it. I bet 40 stories or more would remain. Completely removing 5 stories would be more than aircraft impact and fire could have done in less than two hours. This would eliminate all of the idiotic arguments about how hot the fire got.

So after all of this time how do engineering schools explain not thinking of a test that simple.

But we would still have to have accurate distribution of mass data, it is not just a matter of scale. But my model was tested to be as weak as possible relative to the static load and that is not how skyscrapers are designed.

Sorry, that was supposed to be trigonometry!

psik

There seriously are few words to describe how woefully inaccurate your assumptions here are... so I think I'll let "Billy Madison" do it for me:

psikeyhackr, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The explanation is that engineers understand engineering better than you do: It turns out, scaling a model is very difficult because geometry and strength do not scale together - not to mention flying it to the moon so you can scale gravity! Computer models are better, so they were used instead.

Oh wow, it is called the square cube law and Galileo figured it out 400 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoM17ikreio

And then there is the Froude Number that was determined more than 100 years ago also before they had electronic computers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number

And then there is the minor detail of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge model that was completed in 4 months inside a wind tunnel in 1940.

This is what makes 9/11 so hysterically funny. We are supposed to believe that with all of these complicated things that were done decades before 9/11 that neither a physical nor virtual model of the north tower can be made to unequivocally resolve this issue in TWELVE YEARS. We are not even told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level to even consider doing a good model either physical or simulated.

Of course after 12 years engineers and scientists would look pretty ridiculous no matter what they do. If they make a model that can collapse then why did they take so long? If they can't make one that can collapse then OOPS....

psik

 

[Kittamaru]

Because, in the end, none of it matters... all it would do is allow conspiracy theorists like yourself to come up with even crazier and more insane "explanations" for what happened... at least without that information, your theories are so full of holes that the average joe schmoe can tell your just full of woo-woo. With actual numbers, the risk becomes greater that you MIGHT convince actual, upstanding folks that you aren't just some nutter looking for attention, and thus would detract from ACTUAL scientific fact.

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

Oh wow, it is called the square cube law and Galileo figured it out 400 years ago.

Yet you don't understand it's implications for scaling today. You are completely ignorant about it's effect in scaling.

Take three ping pong balls, one normal size, one 1 foot in diameter and one 1/12 inch diameter, but identical material and thickness(relative). Which one(s) could a normal human crush?(note, I have seen a normal ping pong ball crushed, but not by a "normal" human, he also crushed nuts in his hand).

You cannot build an accurate scale model of the Twin Towers that will tell you a damn thing about the actual physics except at 1/1. That is what square/cube means. That's why gravity does not scale.

Grumpy

Oh, and I notice you did not address my post. Probably because you cannot deal with facts very well at all.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Oh wow, it is called the square cube law and Galileo figured it out 400 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoM17ikreio

Yes, that is the problem. But stating the problem is not a solution. Maybe it would help if you tried to identify the properties of such a model:

Let's say you want a 1/100th scale model. (14 feet tall)
How much should it weigh?
How fast do you want it to fall?

This is what makes 9/11 so hysterically funny. We are supposed to believe that with all of these complicated things that were done decades before 9/11 that neither a physical nor virtual model of the north tower can be made to unequivocally resolve this issue in TWELVE YEARS.

Virtual models HAVE been made.

We are not even told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level to even consider doing a good model either physical or simulated.

The design is a matter of public record; there is nothing stopping you from doing it. And again, simulations have been done.

 

[billvon]

Oh wow, it is called the square cube law and Galileo figured it out 400 years ago.

And truthers still haven't figured it out!

 

[psikeyhackr]

And truthers still haven't figured it out!

And what does it tell us about the quantity of steel down all skyscrapers in order to support the progressively increasing weight?

But then the collapse believers have no interest in the distributions of steel.

This 9/11 business is grossly unscientific no matter what the truth is.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yes, that is the problem. But stating the problem is not a solution. Maybe it would help if you tried to identify the properties of such a model:

Let's say you want a 1/100th scale model. (14 feet tall)
How much should it weigh?
How fast do you want it to fall?

Virtual models HAVE been made.

The design is a matter of public record; there is nothing stopping you from doing it. And again, simulations have been done.

If it is such a public record why can't you provide a link to it?

But the scale model would have to have correct data on the tower. Let's see you come up with data on the horizontal beams in the core. There were 2800 perimeter wall panels from the 9th floor to the top on each tower. The NIST report specifies the total weight of all of those panels. But the only source specifying the weight of an individual panel is an engineering magazine from 1970 and only says the heaviest was 22 tons.

Gregory Urich claimed to make a spreadsheet from the NIST's SAP 2000 model. But then he admits he had to interpolate the data on the perimeter panels. But he had to make the panes at the bottom 19 tons because a linear interpolation using 22 tons give negative results at the top.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/urich/MassAndPeWtc1.htm

There is not information on how many different weights there were and the quantity of each. So all of this stuff about there being enough information to make an accurate model is crap.

But the real building would have a safety factor. So that is why I deliberately made my physical model as weak as possible relative to the static load. So any engineering school could build bigger and heavier models as weak as possible without data on the real building and see if any will collapse.

psik

 

[Kittamaru]

I think what irritates me the most about this, psikeyhackr, is that you claim yourself to be so much more intelligent than the people who have spent YEARS of their lives earning advanced degrees and YEARS of cumulative hours researching and testing this, to the point that you feel you can, with authority, simply state "they are wrong"... and yet you have such an incredibly limited grasp on how any of this physically WORKS. Your math has been proven to be flawed, your reasoning has been shot full of holes, and yet you still, impertinently, insist that EVERYONE around you is wrong and you are the only one who "gets it".

This is why nobody takes truthers seriously...

 

[leopold]

The issue is whether or not the top portion, approximately 13% could fall straight and thoroughly destroy the lower 80%.

i'm sure you are well aware of the fact that the perimeter and core columns both contained butt joints.
it's a matter of record that one third of the perimeter column joints were butt joints.
it's my opinion that the correct placement of these joints could have resulted in the building essentially destroying itself once it was compromised.

also, since the building (1 & 2) was 95% air there wouldn't be much buildup of debris.

 

[billvon]

And what does it tell us about the quantity of steel down all skyscrapers in order to support the progressively increasing weight?

It does not speak to that. It explain why you cannot "scale down" a building and have the results be equally valid.

Now you know a little more than you did before. (perhaps)

 

[Russ_Watters]

If it is such a public record why can't you provide a link to it?

That is one of the more idiotic requests I have ever received. Do you need me to explain google to you? I thought you were learned in the subject of the WTC collapse? If you really haven't the slightest clue how to use the interwebs, I can walk you through it (as condescending as it may sound): start by going to www.google.com and type in a search in the box provided. I'll let you tell me what search terms you used and if you have trouble, then I can nudge you in the right direction. However, if you have any skills at all, you should be able to find them on the first try and in about 5 seconds.

In any case, you're getting off track here -- You said you want a scale model and I asked for some parameters so we could see how that would/would not be useful. Like how fast you want it to fall: we're on earth and I assume you want to do the test here. So do you want it to collapse in the same number of seconds? At the same acceleration rate? A scaled speed/acceleration rate? What are you looking for with that?

For the weight: should it be 1/100th? 1/100^3?

I can teach you about the problems of scaleability if you have an interest in learning, but you have to stop with the random paranoid conspiracy asides and focus on the issue of scaleability.

So that is why I deliberately made my physical model as weak as possible relative to the static load. So any engineering school could build bigger and heavier models as weak as possible without data on the real building and see if any will collapse.

Well geez, if you just want to build a random model that has nothing to do with the WTC and see if it will collapse, that can certainly be done, but won't have any point, as it has nothing to do with the WTC collapse!

 

[CptBork]

I can teach you about the problems of scaleability if you have an interest in learning, but you have to stop with the random paranoid conspiracy asides and focus on the issue of scaleability.

Why would he care about learning anything new when he already understands everything in the universe?

Well geez, if you just want to build a random model that has nothing to do with the WTC and see if it will collapse, that can certainly be done, but won't have any point, as it has nothing to do with the WTC collapse!

He probably hasn't actually tried to build any models, because he can't find lego blocks with different weights so he can put the heavier ones at the bottom.

 

[billvon]

Let's say you want a 1/100th scale model. (14 feet tall)
How much should it weigh?
How fast do you want it to fall?

Here's an interesting video of a model. It is made of stacked lengths of wood with no connections other than friction. It's 31 feet tall.

It was built by students at Kettering University as a fundraiser, and people paid for a chance to knock it down with a slingshot. The third guy who tried managed to knock it down. And although zero attempt was made to make it the same as the WTC, the collapse is interesting.

The first shot knocked out some of the structure. The tower sways very slightly but remains standing.

The third shot ball knocked out even more of the structure. At first the structure remains standing, and again it sways slightly. This time it sways just enough, and the damaged section collapses completely. The entire upper portion of the tower then falls as a unit, rotating slightly, and ends up falling almost on top of the bottom of the tower.

And again while this was not intended to replicate anything about the WTC, the collapse proceeded almost identically to the sequence depicted in post 985.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBbz2eIoVDQ

 

[Neddy Bate]

Here's an interesting video of a model. It is made of stacked lengths of wood with no connections other than friction. It's 31 feet tall.

And again while this was not intended to replicate anything about the WTC, the collapse proceeded almost identically to the sequence depicted in post 985.

If the WTC towers had no connections other than friction, I would expect them to fall that way also.

 

[billvon]

If the WTC towers had no connections other than friction, I would expect them to fall that way also.

And if the structure had weak or easily sheared connection points I'd expect it to be somewhat similar.

 

[Russ_Watters]

And if the structure had weak or easily sheared connection points I'd expect it to be somewhat similar.

One thing people don't understand is the kinetic energy involved is enormous compared to the fracture energy of the elements. Neither the connection points nor the beams/columns themselves put up a meaningful fight against an already collapsing building.