9/11 was an inside job

Status
Not open for further replies.
psikeyhackr said:
Human beings cannot change the way physics works. So the issue is how the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion in less than 30 seconds.
Click to expand...



In my view, it would be utterly Impossible to recreate the conditions exactly as happened on the day that a group of fanatical, evil nutbags, flew a couple of fuel laden jets into the towers...Utterly Impossible.
And to try and use such flimsy data, while completely ignoring the blatantly obvious data and evidence, is bordering on criminality in my opinion.
Either that, or the possibility that the person or persons, pushing such crap, are politically, and/or mentally compromised.
 
paddoboy said:
:)

So the issue of planes hitting the towers, and why and how they hit the towers is irrelevant?
Are you really serious?
In plain and simple language, that is nothing more than a cop out, and just reinforces the position [already evidenced and made clear in your many posts] that you are in fact a deceitful and/or gullible conspiracy pusher.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization. As I recall psikeyhackr says they're irreleevant because of the loading redundancy. Built into the towers. As I recall his opinion is that they're irrelevant because they could not/should not, according to NISTs projections have damaged or destroyed enough core columns to be a problem.
 
Trippy said:
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization. As I recall psikeyhackr says they're irreleevant because of the loading redundancy. Built into the towers. As I recall his opinion is that they're irrelevant because they could not/should not, according to NISTs projections have damaged or destroyed enough core columns to be a problem.
Click to expand...

The point, from where I am, is that [1] Is it possible to recreate conditions exactly as happened on 9/11?
[2]Any slight variation, [angle the plane hit, the speed it was going at, the amount of fuel when it did hit] would make any projections on load redundancies, butt joints, the exact amount of steel, the concrete, and many more incidentals and conditions I have failed to mention, would invalidate any calculations re what some suppose should have happened.

So using the laws of physics in any and all those situations is never going to be conclusive.
At least that's the way I see it as a layman.
 
Trippy said:
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair characterization. As I recall psikeyhackr says they're irreleevant because of the loading redundancy. Built into the towers. As I recall his opinion is that they're irrelevant because they could not/should not, according to NISTs projections have damaged or destroyed enough core columns to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Except those same reports, and others, go on to state how it was a combination of immediate failures brought upon by the impact of the jet coupled with delayed failures due to metal deformation from uneven heating due to the jet-fuel fires that eventually brought the towers down.
 
paddoboy said:
In my view, it would be utterly Impossible to recreate the conditions exactly as happened on the day that a group of fanatical, evil nutbags, flew a couple of fuel laden jets into the towers...Utterly Impossible.
And to try and use such flimsy data, while completely ignoring the blatantly obvious data and evidence, is bordering on criminality in my opinion.
Either that, or the possibility that the person or persons, pushing such crap, are politically, and/or mentally compromised.
Click to expand...

Duplicating the conditions exactly would be irrelevant and idiotic. All that matters is testing whether collapse was possible.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast the the north tower collapsed in 11 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in human history.

http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

But I propose a 5 story gap, which we know did not happen, combined with constant speed of destruction of supposedly intact levels would take 19 seconds. So most of the supposed gravitational collapse would have to accelerate while destroying most of the structure and just leaving behind some of the core.

So we just need to model the collapse and create a gap greater than aircraft and fire could possibly cause. If the structure is deliberately built weaker than the WTC in proportion to its weight and it still won't collapse then what happened on 9/11 had to have destructive agents above and beyond aircraft impact and fire.

So it is certainly interesting that we don't have data on the distributions of steel and concrete and no engineering school has discussed modelling the collapse.

psik
 
paddoboy said:
:) So the issue of planes hitting the towers, and why and how they hit the towers is irrelevant? Are you really serious?
Click to expand...

Do you have trouble reading?

This is what I wrote:
Who caused some type of aircraft to hit the north tower and why are irrelevant issues to me so I do not even think about it.
Click to expand...

I said the issues of who caused it and why is irrelevant. That does not affect whether or not the consequences of the impact could destroy the north tower.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Do you have trouble reading?

This is what I wrote:


I said the issues of who caused it and why is irrelevant. That does not affect whether or not the consequences of the impact could destroy the north tower.

psik
Click to expand...

Except the impact of the planes, and the fires they caused, are DIRECTLY and UNDENIABLY tied to the failure of the supporting structure... calling it irrelevant is like calling the knife blade that caused the stab wound a person is bleeding to death out of irrelevant...
 
psikeyhackr said:
Duplicating the conditions exactly would be irrelevant and idiotic. All that matters is testing whether collapse was possible.

9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in human history.
Click to expand...



In actual fact the only farce that exists on this forum, is you and the other troubled alternative/conspiracy pushers that haunt us from time to time.

If you had "ANYTHING" concrete value, "ANYTHING" of substance, any "EVIDENCE" at all to show that things were not as was obvious to most sensible folk, you would not be here...you would not be sprouting garbage, in the fringe sections of any forum.
You would be out showing the world, what you have found, and what you have been smart enough to find that has escaped everyone else.

But you cant. Because these forums are the only outlet you have to preach your nonsensical crap.

Actually, you did not have to answer my questions. It is quite obvious that you are a conspiracy troll, going on other posts and threads covering this type of nonsense.

We can all be thankful though, that as time progresses, this type of crap, and the people sprouting conspiracy crap, will gradually die out and it will be taken to the grave when your time comes.
 
psikeyhackr said:
Duplicating the conditions exactly would be irrelevant and idiotic.
All that matters is testing whether collapse was possible.
Click to expand...
reasonably accurate would be close enough.
your model is not reasonably accurate.
it fails to model the loosening core and especially the perimeter below the collapse.
in my opinion your model only depicts how well the floors are suspended.
given the above and the fact the floors were held by the core and perimeter your model is not accurate at all.
 
Kittamaru

Except the impact of the planes, and the fires they caused, are DIRECTLY and UNDENIABLY tied to the failure of the supporting structure... calling it irrelevant is like calling the knife blade that caused the stab wound a person is bleeding to death out of irrelevant... .
Click to expand...

It is correct to say those buildings survived the impacts, the built in reserve strength allowed them to continue standing after that event. But there were many columns that were overloaded(as compared to as built)and near their yeild point or point of failure under load and the external frames were severed altogether in large areas on both buildings. If there had been smaller fires successfully fought those buildings could still be standing. But there were actually multi-floor, widespread, jetA fueled fire zones with temperatures well above 500C, at 500C structural steel loses half it's strength and starts yeilding, further overloading some of those columns, which finally fail. Gravity, Kenetic energy, weak floors and weak butt joints dictate the rest. As we saw happen, twice, on the same day.

That is just the physical reality, but some cannot accept the facts or the real physics involved. Most of these people grow up and move out of their mom's basement. The few who don't...:shrug:

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
Kittamaru



It is correct to say those buildings survived the impacts, the built in reserve strength allowed them to continue standing after that event. But there were many columns that were overloaded(as compared to as built)and near their yeild point or point of failure under load and the external frames were severed altogether in large areas on both buildings. If there had been smaller fires successfully fought those buildings could still be standing. But there were actually multi-floor, widespread, jetA fueled fire zones with temperatures well above 500C, at 500C structural steel loses half it's strength and starts yeilding, further overloading some of those columns, which finally fail. Gravity, Kenetic energy, weak floors and weak butt joints dictate the rest. As we saw happen, twice, on the same day.

That is just the physical reality, but some cannot accept the facts or the real physics involved. Most of these people grow up and move out of their mom's basement. The few who don't...:shrug:

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...



Nice explanation Grumpy!
Where's ya been! :)
 
Neddy Bate

Was it twice or thrice? If I recall, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all went down pretty dramatically.
Click to expand...

The Twin Towers fell due to aircraft impact damage aggravated by multi-floor, widespread fires, Tower 7 fell because of impact damage from debris from Tower One exacerbated by over 7 hours of unfought localized fire and serious design compromises in it's frame members(they were cantilevered over an existing power plant on the first floor). All steel framed, diaphragm truss floored buildings will collapse under those conditions(as we saw three times that day). Reinforced concrete buildings won't(as a general rule), they will withstand those conditions(as the Empire State building withstood the 1948 crash of a B 25 full of Avgas). The difference being in how they handle heat. It's in the physics, no explosives or thermite needed.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
Neddy Bate



The Twin Towers fell due to aircraft impact damage aggravated by multi-floor, widespread fires, Tower 7 fell because of impact damage from debris from Tower One exacerbated by over 7 hours of unfought localized fire and serious design compromises in it's frame members(they were cantilevered over an existing power plant on the first floor). All steel framed, diaphragm truss floored buildings will collapse under those conditions(as we saw three times that day). Reinforced concrete buildings won't(as a general rule), they will withstand those conditions(as the Empire State building withstood the 1948 crash of a B 25 full of Avgas). The difference being in how they handle heat. It's in the physics, no explosives or thermite needed.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...

But as some people show, physics is BORING. They want there to be explosives, or thermite, or invisible rockets on the roof pushing the debris down faster than gravity could supposedly pull it. They need that conflict and conspiracy to... well... I dont' know what they want or need it for, but they do sure seem to need it!
 
leopold said:
reasonably accurate would be close enough.
your model is not reasonably accurate.
it fails to model the loosening core and especially the perimeter below the collapse.
in my opinion your model only depicts how well the floors are suspended.
given the above and the fact the floors were held by the core and perimeter your model is not accurate at all.
Click to expand...

I agree it is not accurate enough to be conclusive. I never claimed it was PROOF.

How expensive would a good tube-in-tube model be? The only way I think of building a good one that could be replicated without much difficulty would be by using a 3D printer. It the 3D printer could make each level 2 feet on a side then it would be about 1.5 inches tall. It would still require accurate distribution of mass data to properly weight each level and make them only as strong ast necessary.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
I agree it is not accurate enough to be conclusive. I never claimed it was PROOF.

How expensive would a good tube-in-tube model be? The only way I think of building a good one that could be replicated without much difficulty would be by using a 3D printer. It the 3D printer could make each level 2 feet on a side then it would be about 1.5 inches tall. It would still require accurate distribution of mass data to properly weight each level and make them only as strong ast necessary.

psik
Click to expand...


It's hard to make a model that is strong enough to stand on its own, but also weak enough to collapse at near free-fall speed. Did you try downloading the free physics program I mentioned? It's pretty neat. I was just playing with it now, and I noticed that it has a gravity setting, which helps somewhat.
 
Neddy Bate said:
It's hard to make a model that is strong enough to stand on its own, but also weak enough to collapse at near free-fall speed.
Click to expand...
do you understand that 1 & 2 is not like the empire state building (ESB) in construction?
ESB only relied on the outer part to remain standing.
1 & 2 relied on 3 interacting elements to keep them standing, the core, the floors, and the perimeter.
the perimeter carried the majority of the load, 53% i believe, the core carried the rest.
the floors kept the core and perimeter aligned on the vertical and kept the building from twisting.
the core columns was not one long piece.
they were several short pieces end to end.
you have seen video of core column samples.
 
leopold said:
do you understand that 1 & 2 is not like the empire state building (ESB) in construction?
ESB only relied on the outer part to remain standing.
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with that? The ESB was a grid design with columns spaced 30 feet apart throughout the structure.

Steel columns and beams were to be used to form a stable 3-D grid. Because the column grids were to be closely spaced, the open spaces in the building would be obstructed. As a result, there would be no column-free spaces on any of the building's floors.
Click to expand...
http://www.generalcontractor.com/resources/articles/empire-state-building.asp

Since the first steel-reinforced skyscrapers were built in the latter part of the 19th century, these nature-defying structures had always relied for their basic support on a kind of three-dimensional cage, or grid. The grid permeated the entire building -- massive steel columns interrupting the floor space every 20 or 30 feet, no matter which direction you turned. The point was structural integrity: if one of the closely spaced steel bones failed, another would be there to take up the slack, avoiding a total collapse.
Click to expand...
http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The Height of Ambition Part Four.pdf

psik
 
leopold said:
do you understand that 1 & 2 is not like the empire state building (ESB) in construction?
ESB only relied on the outer part to remain standing.
1 & 2 relied on 3 interacting elements to keep them standing, the core, the floors, and the perimeter.
the perimeter carried the majority of the load, 53% i believe, the core carried the rest.
the floors kept the core and perimeter aligned on the vertical and kept the building from twisting.
the core columns was not one long piece.
they were several short pieces end to end.
you have seen video of core column samples.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your response has to do with my comment, "It's hard to make a model that is strong enough to stand on its own, but also weak enough to collapse at near free-fall speed." My comment was meant to illustrate that even if psikey did use a 3D printer to make a scaled-down model of WTC1 or 2, there would still be the question of how strong the material should be, and how strong the connections should be. If it is too strong, it won't collapse, and there won't be anything to analyze. If it is too weak, like a "house of cards" type arrangement, then it can collapse, but the question arises as to whether that is a valid model of a building designed to remain standing through hurricane strength winds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top