that's it?
that's all you have to say about these butt joints we have been telling you about?
and it isn't just the core columns, a third of the perimeter was butt joints.
how is this going to affect your model?
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
that's all you have to say about these butt joints we have been telling you about?
and it isn't just the core columns, a third of the perimeter was butt joints.
how is this going to affect your model?
I am not the one trying to make a big deal about butt joints. All of the perimeter columns used butt joints though they were staggered so only 1/3rd of the columns had butt joints on a given level. I understand all of that.
It would take a really big physical model to have bolts in butt joints. And I am not getting excited about one measly picture.
The force of any supposed collapse would still be perpendicular to the joints and the mass would still have to be accelerated. The distribution of mass down the tower is more important than butt joints.
So where is your model that can collapse due to the fall of its top 15%. Mine doesn't collapse. It arrests and has no bolts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c
You can believe I have to convince YOU when you can't come up with any model all you want.
psik
No, Psikeyhackr, that isn't how things work around here. YOU are the one making the claim that the building could not possibly have collapsed the way it did... thus, YOU are the one required to substantiate said claim. So far, your "evidence" (models made of paper? Really now?) has been utterly refuted. All the while, you stick your fingers in your ears and scream and shout that it's not possible.
Either provide some actual evidence, or the simple truth is that your claims will be accepted as simple woo-woo conspiracy theory nonsense.
Either provide some actual evidence, or the simple truth is that your claims will be accepted as simple woo-woo conspiracy theory nonsense.
And I built a model and made a video and anyone that wants to can duplicate it.
YOU can talk.
I am impressed.
No one can even come up with accurate distribution of steel and concrete data so a really good model can be made.
So keep on TALKING.
psik
i don't see how this accurately models the collapse.
the core joints were staggered.
butt joints many floors below the collapse were separated.
this is where you are making your mistake.
you are assuming the "force" came all from above.
as the joints failed down the building it gave the appearance of a CD.
building 7 is the real anomaly of 911.
You have been given this data numerous times and have chosen to ignore it, despite being collected by people who have spent YEARS studying these kinds of phenomena and are the experts of their field...
Tell me Psikey... why shouldn't we just rid the site of you? You disregard evidence, lie habitually, try to pass off knowingly false information as fact, and generally bring absolutely nothing to the table beyond the meager entertainment factor of another crackpot conspiracy theorist... what, pray tell, do you bring to a scientific forum that warrants keeping you around?
Yes, you built a model... out of PAPER. How did you simulate MELTING METAL using PAPER?
Tell me Psikey... why shouldn't we just rid the site of you? You disregard evidence, lie habitually, try to pass off knowingly false information as fact, and generally bring absolutely nothing to the table beyond the meager entertainment factor of another crackpot conspiracy theorist... what, pray tell, do you bring to a scientific forum that warrants keeping you around?
Yes, you built a model... out of PAPER. How did you simulate MELTING METAL using PAPER?
And I gave you a link to a much better model. It shows the tower standing for a short time after the second impact - then it collapses, with the upper structure falling almost as a unit and destroying the lower section. (Sound familiar?) This was a much more accurate model, with close to zero strength in the joints between the horizontal and vertical members (again similar to the WTC's design.)
Well there you have it. Tha guvamint won't let the good people build their towers out of paper because they want them to collapse from time to time, so they can blame smelly terrorists in the desert and take all their oil.
*snrk* I should't have laughed at this... but I did...
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
So, now you guys are having a laugh that psikey used paper in his model? Why? Do you think a better approach would be for him to build a model made of STEEL COLUMNS connected by BOLTS and WELDS? You guys should at least try to remember which side of the debate you are on.
i'm not laughing at it.
psiky is the only poster to my knowledge that has constructed a model.
i believe psiky is assuming the top crushed the bottom and that isn't the case.
these butt joints allowed the separation of elements in advance of the collapse.
I'm just frustrated that he doesn't understand why his model doesn't "add up" to what actually transpired...
You have to understand that conspiracy theorists aren't rational people, so appealing to their intelligence is a losing cause. This is religion to him.
That said, people seem to enjoy sparring with him. I'd leave it alone.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
I agree that psikey's model is meant to demonstrate that it is not possible for the top portion of his model to provide all the forces required to crush the bottom portion straight down.
Imagine if the top portion of WTC 1 or 2 magically disappeared before the collapse. Are you saying that the bottom portion would have failed anyway? Where would those forces have come from?
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Your frustration is understandable, but the only other model we have that looks anything like what actually transpired is the video that Bilvon posted. It is essentially an unstable structure from bottom to top, made of unconnected elements. So it is a bit hard to swallow that steel framed buildings should be modeled that way.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
He seems quite rational to me.
It wasn't unstable at all. It stood on its own for hours, then withstood an impact that destroyed almost half the thickness of the structure. It then withstood a SECOND impact for a short time before collapsing. It's not as stable as you would like it to be, perhaps - but then neither was the WTC. (Which, it turns out, was made of a lot of barely connected elements.)
It's a very low-fidelity model for many reasons. It's just a better model than a bunch of pieces of paper around a solid core.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps I should not have used the term "unstable". Perhaps "metastable" is a more accurate description for your video model.
But still, does it make any sense that the world's tallest buildings (at one time) would be designed to be anything less than stable?
Just to remind you, your side of the argument would be that psikey's "bunch of pieces of paper around a solid core" are unrealistically STRONG for the model. Just so you get your talking points right, you should be telling us how paper is a ridiculously STRONG thing to use in a model. Also, I don't think it helps your side that your "metastable" video model withstood multiple impacts before collapsing.
Every building in the world is; you can always overstress (or damage) them until they collapse. Examples are numerous. Buildings are designed to be as cheap as possible, with an adequate design margin to deal with most conceivable events (earthquake, fire, aircraft collision, wind, lightning etc.)
Not sure which "side" you think I am on, so not sure what you mean.
It is not complicated.
The model tends to show why what did happen, should not have happened on the basis of the energy inputs we know about.
But you have chosen to believe it was possible with no other energy inputs.
So why can't you build a physical model that can collapse and why don't you want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? How can you do science without accurate data?
I cannot claim that my model has the same mass distribution as the north tower if I do not know what that distribution was. But I can make my supports as weak as possible relative to the static load but we KNOW that is not how skyscrapers are constructed. So if my "weak as possible" model will not collapse then why is everyone supposed to believe real skyscrapers could without additional help?
psik
- Status