9/11 was an inside job

[Aqueous Id]

If our engineering schools can't make the top 15% of a self supporting structure destroy the rest in a gravitational collapse then it certainly makes whatever happened to the north tower is extremely INTERESTING.
But then our engineering schools do not even talk about trying. FOR TEN YEARS! psik

I'm sure after they saw you bring NASA to their knees WITH PAPER AND WASHERS ON A DOWEL they figured out what time it is.

You know, I think you may have just stumbled on the $3.29 solution to discouraging ALL FRIVOLOUS UNIVERSITY PROJECTS. If you weren't so scared of the government, I'd recommend you run for Congress on the Republican ticket. You could easily get that 66% education funding cut Ryan is asking for, just by scaring the bajeezuz out of all the grant proposal writers.

Hey - wait: paper, rock, scissors . . . oh, I got it: paper wraps rock, therefore you got the concrete covered.

I guess I should say something halfway serious even though this thread is way out in the weeds. You've actually had some very good feedback. You just don't have a clue what any of the technical stuff entails, so it's impossible to speak your language, since it lacks the lexicon of actual science.

I can recommend some good material that would help you catch up with those pathetic engineering schools so you could, you know, rub their noses in dog poop and all that. A couple of topics come to mind. One is any basic text on statics. Then one on concrete. Next I would recommend one on fatigue. Then throw in some Finite Element Analysis.

After that, go get a BS in Civil Engineering, and go ahead and do your MS with your thesis on the WTC collapse, and you'll need a concurrent software curriculum because your going to be doing giga-matrix determinants out the wahzoo, and then you should be all set for your PhD. By then the rest of us here will be catching up with how to calibrate the little paper bands to ensure that each one gives at least a second order approximation to a million element network. I've already got a calibration technique in mind that uses fender washers and toilet roll spools.

Then life will be good, we can order each other a beer online, and write kickass posts against the government. And - what's his name? - oh yeah: Michael Moore - that's who we need - yeah Michael Moore will want to come do this up proper and then you'll get the YouTube audience you really want - the ones who will throw flowers at you and give you the ticker tape parade and have you put your feet in wet cement - get it? cement.. - down at Grauman's Chinese Theatre next to Groucho and Kobe Bryant and then fella life will be good.

That's what I'm talkin about.

 

[MacGyver1968]

You call that MOST? Can you count? The core had 47 columns.

Talk about retarded.

psik

You couldn't find (incivility removed)....much less the total mass of the towers. Why don't you just give up, and start a new hobby...like growing flowers or something?

 

[Aqueous Id]

But I did TWO DROPS and my model still did not come close to complete collapse.

Anyone following this thread would know why. Do you?

<waves arm frenetically: teacher! teacher!> Because paper cuts scissors? Sorry. (Oops.) Because it's just a silly toy, not a model?

It has no relation to the physics of a WTC tower being hit by a jetliner. And your hint about the pulverization of concrete involves fatigue of material that's utterly off scale. Little paper strips have elasticity. The just fold up instead of shattering.

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

Originally Posted by Grumpy
http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

When you view this pdf pay particular attention to fig.2 and fig.3B as they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I have said about the truss floors is absolutely correct. The whole paper is well worth reading, it makes psi's drivel look as foolish as it actually is.

Grumpy
That is funny. Search it for the word CORE. It is used a total of eight times and mostly they just talk about the truss connections to the core.

Well, DUH! The name of the paper is "Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of
the World Trade Center Towers", that should have given you a hint that it had nothing to do with the core collapse. Are you so...misinformed that you think searching a three page document is the same as getting valid information out of it. It was a paper about what was found to be the failure mode of the connections between the trusses and the frame by actual scientists, examining firsthand the steel of WTC to determine how those elements of the WTC building failed and why they provided not one bit of resistance to the vertical avalanche. The fig.2 is a clear view of a sixty foot truss showing that it was constructed exactly as I have shown on this thread, Fig. 3B shows the angle iron clearly and a partially constructed floor with the truss clearly sitting on it's own set of angle irons and the relatively wimpy structure the floors were in relation to those frame members(but they could hold them up if they fell, right?). It also confirms that each individual floor was attached only to the frame and carried no load, structurally, and that each floor had it's own separate connections to the vertical wall of the frame by those wimpy angle irons. The paper determined that 96% failed being either bent down or ripped off that frame and that broken links in the chain will not transmit power, resistance or forces and that's why the thickness of the steel of those frame members is irrelevant. The core then fell over, as it could not stand except in a vertical direction. 7% off of vertical and the steel breaks at the joints.

They can't explain the collapse of the core so they ignore it and say "likely this" and "likely that". I am impressed.

Like ignoring Mount Rushmore in a paper about the Grand Canyon? Well, their both monuments, right? Impressively...profoundly...stupendously...unimpressive of you.

Just another article IMPLYING the core was unimportant by not talking about it.

:facepalm:

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

All right, here is the closest I could think of to a model that MIGHT tell us something.

You will need several boxes of the thinnest Angel hair pasta you can find. Since the past comes in ~10 inch lengths our model will be 40 inches tall, or a scale of 33 ft per inch and our base will be 6.3 inches square. Oh, you will need to build two of them, as you will be testing one to failure(or build one, test to failure and then build another one).

Drill tiny little holes around the perimeter and for each core column. The bottom can be wood, but the top(drilled only halfway through)should be high density foam. you will need three pieces of cardstock for the mechanical floors(with all holes drilled in them)and superglue to "weld" your columns end to end(four pieces each and make them absolutely straight). insert them through the cardstock pieces and into the base, adjust the three "mechanical floors" at each of the joints and go wild gluing the joints to each piece of card stock, then put the top on(you'll probably need a couple of helpers). At this scale the floors are made of smoke, so ignore them.(unless you have a well trained but pathetically small spider who will put in 86 floors

Testing. The first thing we must do is reverse engineer the failure load. Put a paper cup on the top and fill it full of sand, lead shot, etc. slowly and, once disaster happens use half that(the WTC was designed with a safety factor of ~2)for the test load for the next phase.

Take a pair of nippers and cut the outside frame pasta in the pattern of the aircraft impact damage on the building you are studying, do the same for the known core beams that were damaged as well(hey, nobody said science is easy, try a pair of those hair cutting scissors with the tapered points). Use a small sprayer to wet the beams in the known areas of fire, repeatedly over time(the buildings burned for one and two hours, be patient), you might want to put a thin coat of varnish(NOT WATER BASED) on those areas known not to have been affected by fire. Pasta is affected by water a lot like steel is affected by fire, the wetter(hotter)it gets the softer it becomes, and it fails by snapping if dry(cool), bending and creeping if wet(hot). Your model will collapse into a pile of spaghetti(it's been done, but not by me).

Now that's how you do a model of the WTC events, based on how the Towers were really built. Hey, it might even come in under my budget of $3.29!

Grumpy:thankyou:

 

[psikeyhackr]

All right, here is the closest I could think of to a model that MIGHT tell us something.

You will need several boxes of the thinnest Angel hair pasta you can find. Since the past comes in ~10 inch lengths our model will be 40 inches tall, or a scale of 33 ft per inch and our base will be 6.3 inches square. Oh, you will need to build two of them, as you will be testing one to failure(or build one, test to failure and then build another one).

I did not even bother reading all of that.

I did two searches. I searched on WEIGHT. I searched on MASS.

You don't mention that.

You are talking about making a model that LOOKS somewhat like the WTC. But a gravitational collapse means moving mass impacting supports strong enough to hold the weight of that mass under static conditions.

I NEVER said anything about my model being to any SCALE. You brought that up. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION. So if you are not talking about the weight of the components in that model then what does it have to do with the physics relating to solving this problem?

My washers average 1.7 oz. the top one should be about 1.4 and the bottom one 2.1 oz. It takes about 0.118 joules to flatten a single paper loop. The damage done to the loops corresponds quite well to the potential energy of the falling mass over the empty space through which it falls.

Maybe you should give up on thinking. Or trying to.

psik

 

[Rhaedas]

I did not even bother reading all of that.

/thread closed

I mean, really...

 

[Balerion]

/thread closed

I mean, really...

In two separate posts now, psikeyhackr has admitted that he just keyword searches documents rather than reading them. I mean, that settles it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

/thread closed

I mean, really...

So you explain how you have a relevant gravitational collapse model without dealing with mass or weight.

psik

 

[GeoffP]

I NEVER said anything about my model being to any SCALE. You brought that up. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION. So if you are not talking about the weight of the components in that model then what does it have to do with the physics relating to solving this problem?

Because the behaviour of the materials dictates the reaction of the stack?

As an actual lizardoid, I can tell you your model isn't accurate. We tried all that stuff. Only carbon-based orbital lasers were effective.

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

I did not even bother reading all of that.

I did two searches. I searched on WEIGHT. I searched on MASS.

You don't mention that.

I note you really don't seem to read anything if it doesn't agree with you. I didn't use the words weight or mass, but reverse engineering the failure load deals with those very things. I wrote...

Testing. The first thing we must do is reverse engineer the failure load(also called weight). Put a paper cup on the top and fill it full of sand, lead shot, etc. slowly and, once disaster happens use half that(the WTC was designed with a safety factor of ~2)for the test load for the next phase.

Seems I must explain why I did it that way for some of the slower posters.

The failure load will be twice the design load. Since we cannot scale gravity, we must scale the failure load for our simulation. Putting WEIGHT on the top of the structure to the point of failure and cutting that weight in half is an accurate simulation of the relationship between the design load of WTC and it's failure load, bypassing any inaccuracies in scale, materials and the effects of gravity. The ratio between design and failure loads is thus accurately modeled.

You are talking about making a model that LOOKS somewhat like the WTC.

Not only does my model look more like WTC, the materials I use ACT like the materials used in WTC(unlike paper and steel washers). Spaghetti has been used to model the behavior of steel beams since...well...forever. It snaps like steel, it softens like steel and it creeps like steel. The only thing it cannot model for steel beams is the effects of scale, even the thinnest spaghetti is many times stronger than the full size steel it models. That's why you must reverse engineer your failure load, because the safety factor DOES scale.

But a gravitational collapse means moving mass impacting supports strong enough to hold the weight of that mass under static conditions.

But support designed to hold a certain mass will never hold that same mass if it is moving. It's load is doubled and quadrupled after just a small drop, in WTC it was 12 feet, one floor, before the energy of the falling mass exceeded any possible ability for the supports to stop it, even if they were still attached. Double the speed=4 times the kinetic energy. And at 32 ft/sec/sec it took only one second of falling to go 16 feet, the building fell because one floor's steel failed, dropping the top block.

I NEVER said anything about my model being to any SCALE. You brought that up. My model is a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION

No, it is a pathetic attempt to show just how clueless you are about simulating a real event in your garage. It has nothing to do with the collapse of WTC, though it successfully demonstrated how little you know about physics.

My washers average 1.7 oz. the top one should be about 1.4 and the bottom one 2.1 oz. It takes about 0.118 joules to flatten a single paper loop. The damage done to the loops corresponds quite well to the potential energy of the falling mass over the empty space through which it falls.

Maybe you should give up on thinking. Or trying to.

MASS DOES NOT SCALE(because gravity does not scale). Why do you think an ant can pick up many times it's own mass while we struggle to pick up just one body mass object?And you know as little about thinking as you have demonstrated about any other subject, evidently. Boy I wish you had been one of my physics students. I would either disabuse you of your opinion of your own understanding or I would make sure you failed that course and never entered my classroom again. You ought to at least try to think, just once. You might find that people won't think you're quite as slow as they do now.

Question for the thread, who's simulation do you think more accurately models the events of WTC and why?

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

I note you really don't seem to read anything if it doesn't agree with you. I didn't use the words weight or mass, but reverse engineering the failure load deals with those very things. I wrote...

I confess it did not occur to me to search on LOAD. But you did not use that word in that post either.

But until you build it and test it and it can completely collapse then what is the point?

psik

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

I confess it did not occur to me to search on LOAD. But you did not use that word in that post either.

Did it not occur to you to actually READ the three page paper? Or my complete post?I did use the concept, but there are several words that can be used to convey that concept. If all you do is search for words you will miss the information you need to alleviate your ignorance and misunderstanding. The point being if you know the weight, load, mass that it takes to make the structure fail, you know that half that weight,load or mass is analogous to the load the WTC was designed for and that your simulation, despite the problems of scaling, will be able to tell you something relevant to how it would react. The same goes for your choice of materials and construction. Washers and paper tell you only how paper and washers will behave and nothing about buildings of any sort.

But until you build it and test it and it can completely collapse then what is the point?

A couple of college kids did it years ago, it used to be on utube. The model collapsed in a similar fashion to the real thing. Troothers were upset. But like Birthers, Creationists and other faith based magical thinkers, it changed none of their minds. They are convinced that something besides physics was needed to explain the collapses. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

A couple of college kids did it years ago, it used to be on utube. The model collapsed in a similar fashion to the real thing. Troothers were upset. But like Birthers, Creationists and other faith based magical thinkers, it changed none of their minds. They are convinced that something besides physics was needed to explain the collapses. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

Grumpy

Ever notice that people CLAIM things all the time but for some reason cannot provide supporting evidence and then expect to be believed?

I built a model, made the video and provided enough information for anyone to duplicate it.

You can expect me to believe that story about the college kids all you want. I have looked for models which did that for years. I have not seen one.

I used paper because it was the weakest support I could find relative to the weight. My washers are less than 4 pounds. I even tried tissue paper. Since I do not believe the collapse is possible I will not only have to see it I will have to duplicate it. I could have put wooden donuts inside my paper loops and how would anyone watching the video know?

psik

 

[Rhaedas]

Do you think they lined the towers with explosives before or after the planes hit?

Where are eyewitnesses to all this 'stuff' that was moved into the building? Are all the occupants of the WTC in on the secrecy?

You're so big on numbers...how much C4 (or whatever) would be needed per level to bring down a tower? In demolition they basically weaken the structure so that (drumroll) gravity brings down the building in a certain way. There's NO difference between weakening the structure from the bottom or top. And it's been shown that steel weakens in low temperature fires. Doesn't matter if the bottom goes first, or a top level begins to fall down and hits the rest.

The obviously came down. Or maybe you think even the average NYer there that day is also in on the biggest photoshop in history?

I don't get the reluctance to understand that a building can come down, and once started, gravity was going to win.

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

I built a model, made the video and provided enough information for anyone to duplicate it.

Yeah, I saw your video. The physics are crap, the logic as well. You need to get away from the "concrete core" crowd as what they claim is garbage.

You can expect me to believe that story about the college kids all you want. I have looked for models which did that for years. I have not seen one.

First, I don't give a rat's patooty what you believe. I've just given you a more accurate model, and a more realistic methodology, go do it yourself. It's in the same price range and actually has something to do with the physics of 911(unlike your pathetic attempt to prove...?).

Since I do not believe the collapse is possible

There's your problem right there. Creationists do not believe evolution is real, but it is, Birthers don't believe the President was born in America, but he was. Belief is often not a path to reality. And the reality is that religious fanatics attacked the Twin Towers with 250,000 lb manned cruise missiles full of people and fuel at 500 mph and even though the towers survived the impacts, the multi-floor, fuel fed fires caused the steel to lose it's strength(500F=loss of 50%, 850F=75%, 1000F=oops, taffy)in several areas and fail, the failure dropped the top masses through at least one floor and at that point in time nothing short of the pyramids would have stopped that motion(the building would have still come apart). Believe anything you like, but those are the facts, nothing else is needed to explain the events of that day. And those event DID take place, I watched horrified as the live shots came in. Those planes did impact those buildings(I saw the second one live, the first one on tape), those fires did burn, steel does get weaker with heat, those buildings were designed with only twice as much strength as it needed to stand undisturbed, the impacts did disturb the buildings structure, the fires did cause the steel to fail and physics ruled as physics always rule.

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yeah, I saw your video. The physics are crap, the logic as well. You need to get away from the "concrete core" crowd as what they claim is garbage.

Talk is SO CHEAP!

I have not seen you or anyone else build a self supporting model that can come close to being completely collapsed by the drop of the top 15% or less onto the rest. This emphasis on the trusses and pretense that the core is unimportant is just a BIG LIE as far as I am concerned. Even the NIST admits the core supported 53% of the building's weight.

It is actually hilarious that there is a pretense that the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings are unimportant. You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without that data.

ROFLMAO

The NIST admitted in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight of the building in order to analyse its motion as a result of the aircraft impact. They never specify the location of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. So your accusation that the physics of my model is bad is nothing but idiotic drivel to me.

Most of the NIST report is nothing but a snow job with enough science to impress the ignorant but not enough to be an accurate analysis. The airliner only deflected the south tower 15 inches on impact but we are supposed to believe that 50 minutes later the top 29 stories could completely break loose and tilt 22 degrees in a couple of seconds as a result of fire.

The physics profession has made a fool of itself by not being extremely interested in this event.

The Irony of Curiosity regarding the 9/11 Affair. Galileo must love it.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

The obviously came down. Or maybe you think even the average NYer there that day is also in on the biggest photoshop in history?

I don't get the reluctance to understand that a building can come down, and once started, gravity was going to win.

It is not my problem if you don't get Newtonian Physics. Gravity does not eliminate the conservation of momentum or the fact that static supports require energy to be destroyed from above. Whether they are steel or paper makes no difference.

If the top of the north tower could fall and destroy everything below then it should not be difficult to build a physical model that could do the same thing and there would certainly be no reason for accurate data on the steel and concrete distributions to not be readily available.

Curiously it seems that information cannot be had on any skyscraper anywhere in the world.

psik

 

[Grumpy]

psikeyhackr

This emphasis on the trusses and pretense that the core is unimportant is just a BIG LIE as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, Creationists think Natural Selection is a big lie, too. Birthers think the President's Birth Certificate is a big lie as well. Your ignorance about the design and construction details and what they mean to the question of the collapses has been plainly shown on this thread. Dude, it happened twice, on the same day! Just how many times does it take before you suddenly realize "Hey, buildings CAN collapse if you hit them with a huge airplane full of fuel."?

Even the NIST admits the core supported 53% of the building's weight.

And the rope hanging the old tire to the limb of the tree supports 100% of that weight...until it breaks. A broken core supports nothing, neither does a broken connection for the floor, and the outer frame is on video in the act of breaking. As-designed strength is irrelevant once the design is broken. Or do you think the tire should just hang there because the rest of the rope is as strong as ever?

The NIST admitted in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight of the building in order to analyse its motion as a result of the aircraft impact.

Well, you would need it in that case, but once it is broken it's remaining strength has ended, it is no longer relevant.

They never specify the location of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

That is just a lie, it's in the report(as if you would know, having only keyword searched it). The center of mass stayed centered over the footprint until the collapse was well underway.

So your accusation that the physics of my model is bad is nothing but idiotic drivel to me.

Well, you do have a lot of experience with idiotic drivel, being a Troother and all. But as a retired Physics teacher, your model sure qualifies.

Most of the NIST report is nothing but a snow job with enough science to impress the ignorant but not enough to be an accurate analysis.

You determined this with keyword search, did you? You obviously haven't read it.

Hmmm, the National Institute of Science and Technology and it's thirty something pounds of scientific reports or some ignorant dweeb on the internet and his tissues and washers, boy that's a hard choice. Like Charles Darwin's Finches or Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck. Or the State of Hawaii vs. Donald Trump and Oily Taints.:scratchin:

You lose.

The physics profession has made a fool of itself by not being extremely interested in this event.

The only one here who has made a fool of themselves is you. You've done a bang up job with that.

Grumpy

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yeah, Creationists think Natural Selection is a big lie, too. Birthers think the President's Birth Certificate is a big lie as well. Your ignorance about the design and construction details and what they mean to the question of the collapses has been plainly shown on this thread. Dude, it happened twice, on the same day! Just how many times does it take before you suddenly realize "Hey, buildings CAN collapse if you hit them with a huge airplane full of fuel."?

So you can create an analogy with birthers and creationists. I am impressed. But Newtonian Physics can be tested with experiments. 100,000,000 years of evolution cannot. More of you sophistry crap.

What does the word FULL mean? Maybe you need to look it up. Tanker planes can be FULL of fuel. Not passenger planes. And the planes had 10,000 gallons which was 34 tons. If it was FULLY FUELED it would have had 24,000 gallons so it was only about 40% full. How many tons of steel were in the core within five stories of the impact. Steel conducts heat. So how does it get hot enough to weaken in less than two hours? Oh yeah, we don't need that data it might be too scientific.

Even the NIST admits that about half of the fuel was used up in the initial fire ball and it is obvious from the south tower video that most of that exploded outside of the building. But what damage did that fireball explosion do to the outside of the building? Except for some broken windows it does not look like it did anything.

It is also curious that THREE building went down on 9/11 even though there were lots of skyscraper fires before and since 9/11. And one of those three building was not hit by a plane.

And that impact against the south tower moved the building a whole FIFTEEN INCHES. WOW!

The only one here who has made a fool of themselves is you. You've done a bang up job with that.

I won't be holding my breath until you or any physicists makes a model that can completely collapse. Have fun with your pasta. Have you figured out the maximum static load it can handle yet?

psik