WTC Collapses

[psikeyhackr]

give it up psikeyhackr, you will never know the weight distribution of WTC 1 and 2.
yes, you can get the floor plans, column dimensions, spandrel weights.
there will be however an important piece of info you will never get and that is the furnishings on each floor.
minor you say? considering that WTC housed some powerhouse banks it's safe to assume that WTC 1 and 2 was filled with all manners of money safes. this in itself will prevent you from getting what you have been screaming for since you started posting here.

.
Stuff of really significant weight would be in the basements. There are rumors of gold bullion.

I can't even find the number and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels. That is totally ridiculous. But I can't find that type of mass distribution information on ANY SKYSCRAPER. Like it is a guild secret.

Actually I am more interested in getting people to understand the IMPORTANCE of the information than actually getting the information. I think accomplishing the first might tend to cause the second to fall into place. What sense does it make to send your kid to a $100,000+ engineering school that can't ask obvious questions?

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

I thought you were ignoring my posts? All the results show is that more people in this particular forum believe the official story regarding 9/11. This isn't surprising given the views of the administrators in sciforums.com. If you were go to a place like JREF, you might be lucky to get one person from the truth movement, while if you were to go to 9/11 truth movement sites, you'd be hard pressed to get 1 or 2 from the official story side. I've presented polls in the past representing the people in New York City, for instance, and the results show that a fair percentage of the people polled believe that the government either let it happen or made it happen.

In any case, I think the most important thing should always be the evidence itself. I would argue that this evidence clearly demonstrates that the towers and WTC 7 were taken down by controlled demolitions and not by the planes and/or fires.

Hey Scott, joined jref just a couple of days ago...are you or anyone else a member?

 

[scott3x]

I thought you were ignoring my posts? All the results show is that more people in this particular forum believe the official story regarding 9/11. This isn't surprising given the views of the administrators in sciforums.com. If you were go to a place like JREF, you might be lucky to get one person from the truth movement, while if you were to go to 9/11 truth movement sites, you'd be hard pressed to get 1 or 2 from the official story side. I've presented polls in the past representing the people in New York City, for instance, and the results show that a fair percentage of the people polled believe that the government either let it happen or made it happen.

In any case, I think the most important thing should always be the evidence itself. I would argue that this evidence clearly demonstrates that the towers and WTC 7 were taken down by controlled demolitions and not by the planes and/or fires.

Hey Scott, joined jref just a couple of days ago...are you or anyone else a member?

Yeah, I'm a member. I even made a few posts there a while back. The forum takes too long to load for me though. When you combine that with the fact that it's even -more- slanted towards the official story then this place, well, let's just say that it can wait .

 

[MacGyver1968]

.
Stuff of really significant weight would be in the basements. There are rumors of gold bullion.

I can't even find the number and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels. That is totally ridiculous. But I can't find that type of mass distribution information on ANY SKYSCRAPER. Like it is a guild secret.

Actually I am more interested in getting people to understand the IMPORTANCE of the information than actually getting the information. I think accomplishing the first might tend to cause the second to fall into place. What sense does it make to send your kid to a $100,000+ engineering school that can't ask obvious questions?

psik

(engage smart ass mode)

If your only interested in getting people to understand the importance of the data...and not getting actual data...Why are you still here? There's only about 5 people that post in this thread..and all of us have got the message..many fucking times...no need to keep repeating it 1000 fucking times!

(disengage smart ass mode)

btw...I thought your comment to Scott about the Matrix was funny.

 

[leopold]

.
Stuff of really significant weight would be in the basements.

some would, some wouldn't.

I can't even find the number and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels. That is totally ridiculous. But I can't find that type of mass distribution information on ANY SKYSCRAPER. Like it is a guild secret.

it's called interpolation psikey.
you have to know the end points and length of what you are working with.
i'm not a structural engineer or i could explain it better.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 1694 in this thread.

I don't know about insane; it brings to mind people in mental wards.

LOL

It comes down to how reality works. Physics is how reality works. So if someone believes something can happen which physically cannot possibly happen then they are out of touch with reality.

Sure. However, since most people have a poor understanding of physics in relation to buildings, I find it understandable...

INSANE

It is like much of the world is in a weird social-psychological state and the people who believe an airliner could bring one of those buildings down are in the majority.

The Matrix has you scott3x. The system has control of your mind. You are a slave Neo.

Lol . To tell you the honest truth though, I think the Matrix series had a lot of good points concerning our society. I also -immensely- enjoyed the Animatrix. I also found another movie done by the Wachowski brothers, V for Vendetta, featuring Natalie Portman, to be very good. However, I disagree with V's idea that he had to do fool Evey (Natalie Portman for those not in the know) in order for her to learn how to be free. I find that life is a much better teacher personally.

Now what kind of societal shock will there be if a lot of people start changing their minds about this? After all of this time the engineering schools have painted themselves into a corner. If distribution of mass can prove it could not happen then how do they explain not demanding mass distribution information years ago?

I think Tova Gabrielle's The Psychology Of Patriotic Denial The Psychology Of Patriotic Denial goes a good way to understanding it. I've seen another article that goes in a similar vein. At the end of her article, she quotes an article from ABC News from November 7, 2001:
NEW YORK, May 1: In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

 

[scott3x]

btw...I thought your comment to Scott about the Matrix was funny.

I'd actually missed that; thanks for pointing it out .

 

[psikeyhackr]

(engage smart ass mode)

If your only interested in getting people to understand the importance of the data...and not getting actual data...Why are you still here? There's only about 5 people that post in this thread..and all of us have got the message..many fucking times...no need to keep repeating it 1000 fucking times!

(disengage smart ass mode)

btw...I thought your comment to Scott about the Matrix was funny.

.
I'm in smart ass mode all of the time. I can't get out. Sometimes I get a little drunk just to turn it off.

And do you know how many lurkers pas through this site or will in the next year?

Just a few days ago I found a site I had never been to where someone had copied most of a post of mine on this subject but not my name. And this was back in 2007. This has happened before on other subjects. So that is the funny thing about the internet, There is no telling how many people see what where and pass it on, it isn't just about how many people post. They may even pass stuff on in real space, mention an idea they read somewhere on the internet and not remember where.

I AM HERE TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!

I'm just subtle about it.

psik

PS -

btw...I thought your comment to Scott about the Matrix was funny.

I'm also here to entertain you when I am not pissing you off.

 

[scott3x]

.


I AM HERE TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!

I'm just subtle about it.

Without a doubt

 

[psikeyhackr]

it's called interpolation psikey.
you have to know the end points and length of what you are working with.
i'm not a structural engineer or i could explain it better.

.
I know what interpolation is. I have used it plenty of times.

My point is that the WTC towers were a man made objects and well documented. The NIST can tell us the original design called for 14 different grades of wall panels but the manufacturer requested and got permission to upgrade two of them so only 12 were actually used on the buildings. But then they can't tell us the number and weights of each panel type and the only reason we know the weight of the heaviest is because of a 1970 article in an engineering magazine!!!

This is insanely ridiculous bullshit!!! The NIST needs to be jailed for incompetence over this crap. They don't even specify the total for the concrete. How are we supposed to interpolate that?

It is common to see figures from 90,000 tons per tower to 425,000 cubic yards for both towers. That cu. yd. figure would yield 280,000 tons per tower assuming it was only the lightweight 110 lb per cubic foot type. We know a normal 150 lb. per cubic foot concrete was also used. Should I do an interpolation to compute all of the possible weight combinations?

psik

 

[leopold]

.
I know what interpolation is. I have used it plenty of times.

My point is that the WTC towers were a man made objects and well documented. The NIST can tell us the original design called for 14 different grades of wall panels but the manufacturer requested and got permission to upgrade two of them so only 12 were actually used on the buildings. But then they can't tell us the number and weights of each panel type and the only reason we know the weight of the heaviest is because of a 1970 article in an engineering magazine!!!

This is insanely ridiculous bullshit!!! The NIST needs to be jailed for incompetence over this crap.

didn't you say this "weight distribution" issue was a gray area throughout the high rise industry? so why single out NIST?

They don't even specify the total for the concrete. How are we supposed to interpolate that?

It is common to see figures from 90,000 tons per tower to 425,000 cubic yards for both towers. That cu. yd. figure would yield 280,000 tons per tower assuming it was only the lightweight 110 lb per cubic foot type. We know a normal 150 lb. per cubic foot concrete was also used. Should I do an interpolation to compute all of the possible weight combinations?

psik

it's a lot of work apparently.

 

[psikeyhackr]

didn't you say this "weight distribution" issue was a gray area throughout the high rise industry? so why single out NIST?

I didn't say "gray area". I said I could not find the distribution of steel and concrete on any skyscraper.

How many skyscrapers have collapsed since the Empire State Building was completed? If it were not for the what happened to the WTC I would not give a damn about weight distribution except on my gut.

The NIST claims to be world renowned experts and they spent 3 years and $20,000,000 and produced 10,000 pages that don't tell us the quantity of concrete.

Why is NIST doing this investigation?
NIST scientists and engineers are world-renowned experts in analyzing a building’s failure and determining the most probable technical cause. Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, “third party” investigator.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

What kind of ridiculous question is that??? They don't explain what happened but claim to be experts at it and don't even provide the obviously relevant information.

:wallbang: :wtf: :wallbang:

psik

 

[scott3x]

Kevin Ryan

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 1298 in this thread.

Underwriter Laboratories/NIST's steel tests much harsher then reality of the actual 9/11 office fires and loads on the steel, and yet the steel still didn't fail, Round 2

Kevin Ryan's peer reviewed paper,

Peer reviewed only by other conspiracy theorists ......such as theologian David Ray Griffin.

Who's written several books on 9/11. From Wikipedia's entry on his first book, The New Pearl Harbor:
In August 2007, National Medal of Science winner Dr. Lynn Margulis praised The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, saying they provide “overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable”, while calling for a new investigation.

Another founder of the Journal for 9/11 studies is physicist Steven Jones, who has also written a fair amount of compelling material regarding 9/11.

The short reign of Ryan Mackey, page 7. I do admit that I don't know where to find Apendix A, however- while NIST's NCSTAR 1-6A does mention it, it doesn't seem to actually -be- in NIST's NCSTAR 1-6A.

Mackey addresses these claims in http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

I believe I've already exposed one of his 'refutations' as nothing more then fluff, or fallacy rich material. Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman, another notable for the 9/11 truth movement, have debunked much of his material.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Mackey addresses these claims in
http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

.
Here is where we have problems with scholarly, peer reviewed, debating bullshit.

On page 202 there is: Appendix B: Simplified Tower Collapse Time vs. Energy

This goes into a lot of calculus goobble-de-gook about the vertical distribution of mass of the skyscraper and the collapse time.

But what people need to understand is that mathematics IS NOT PHYSICS. Mathematics is very useful to physics but it does not tell physics what to do. The mathematics was derived from the physics and then people have to figure out how to apply it correctly in different situations.

Now I have been talking about needing to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the tower. This is because steel and concrete do not always behave the same way under the same conditions. It is the steel that gives a skyscraper the springiness to make it sway back and forth in the wind not the concrete. But the combined mass of the steel and the concrete will provide the inertia that will affect the resonant frequency. Steel in 489 pounds per cubic foot. Concrete used in the WTC was 150 and 110 pounds per cubic foot. So even if you know there was 1000 tons of steel and concrete on a particular level of a building do you really think it doesn't matter how much is steel versus how much is concrete? But that is what the complicated math in that appendix does. MacKey makes an ASSUMPTION about the distribution of mass but the words "steel" and "concrete" don't even appear in that appendix.

So I don't know what kind of peer review that paper went through. I would have to bone up on my math to check if it is correct. But do you think steel and concrete behave the same way when crushed from the top? Because if you don't then why do you think just knowing the distribution of mass without knowing the relative quantities of materials is worth anything? And of course he is making an assumption about the distribution of mass which is convenient to his calculation. If the distribution in the real building is not linear then his math is worthless crap anyway. ROFLMAO

Or at least it is only good for impressing people that probably can't follow it. :shrug:

You don't want people applying common sense when you are trying to razzle-dazzle them with calculus.

psik

PS - But if MacKey is so smart why couldn't he figure that out in the first place? Are some scholars trying to lead some LAYMEN by the nose? Why?

 

[shaman_]

Kevin Ryan

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 1298 in this thread.



Who's written several books on 9/11. From Wikipedia's entry on his first book, The New Pearl Harbor:
In August 2007, National Medal of Science winner Dr. Lynn Margulis praised The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, saying they provide “overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable”, while calling for a new investigation.

You just don't get it. The 'peer review' of another crackpot conspiracy theorist is worth nothing. More laughable is the fact that his field of expertise is religion.

Another founder of the Journal for 9/11 studies is physicist Steven Jones, who has also written a fair amount of compelling material regarding 9/11.

Really? Has he?

Seriously, do you have mental health issues scott? You are describing this to me like we have never discussed Jones.

I believe I've already exposed one of his 'refutations' as nothing more then fluff, or fallacy rich material.

lol. You are not capable of doing more than posting text from conspiracy sites.

Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman, another notable for the 9/11 truth movement, have debunked much of his material.

They made a feeble attempt at a rebuttal, with some pathetic excuses as to why it was so weak. Mackey has addressed their claims. This has been pointed out to you but you are a 911 fanatic.

You cannot actually respond to Mackey's points yourself so all you can do is claim that someone debunked him at some time and that is your dodge.

 

[psikeyhackr]

They made a feeble attempt at a rebuttal, with some pathetic excuses as to why it was so weak. Mackey has addressed their claims. This has been pointed out to you but you are a 911 fanatic.

You cannot actually respond to Mackey's points yourself so all you can do is claim that someone debunked him at some time and that is your dodge.

.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2161251&postcount=1714

So you BELIEVE what you don't understand. That is better? You have already decided what you want to believe so you listen to someone that tells you what you want to hear.

Why don't you demand something as simple as accurate data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC? Why shouldn't we expect such simple information after SEVEN YEARS. On JREF MacKey has told me to read the entire NIST report after I have pointed out that it does not even specify the total amount of CONCRETE in the towers. I have downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and searched it dozens of times but I am not about to read 10,000 pages that don't contain simple and obviously important information. When I ask about accurate info on the distribution of steel and concrete he claims it is irrelevant.

psik

 

[scott3x]

Greats of the 9/11 truth movement and Ryan Mackey

Underwriter Laboratories/NIST's steel tests much harsher then reality of the actual 9/11 office fires and loads on the steel, and yet the steel still didn't fail, Round 2

Kevin Ryan's peer reviewed paper,

Peer reviewed only by other conspiracy theorists ......such as theologian David Ray Griffin.

Who's written several books on 9/11. From Wikipedia's entry on his first book, The New Pearl Harbor:
In August 2007, National Medal of Science winner Dr. Lynn Margulis praised The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, saying they provide “overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable”, while calling for a new investigation.

You just don't get it. The 'peer review' of another crackpot conspiracy theorist is worth nothing.

You can howl at the moon that experts on 9/11 like David Griffin and Steven Jones are 'crackpots'. It won't change what they really are. David Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. You seem to forget the 'philosophy' bit- as wikipedia states:
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

Another founder of the Journal for 9/11 studies is physicist Steven Jones, who has also written a fair amount of compelling material regarding 9/11.

Really? Has he?

Seriously, do you have [insult removed] scott? You are describing this to me like we have never discussed Jones.

I'm describing Steven Jones the way I see him. How you see him is your affair.

I believe I've already exposed one of his 'refutations' as nothing more then fluff, or fallacy rich material.

lol. You are not capable of doing more than posting text from conspiracy sites.

Whatever shaman. I'm the one who realized that one of his alleged refutations was nothing more then fluff and did nothing to refute what he was allegedly rebuffing.

Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman, another notable for the 9/11 truth movement, have debunked much of his material.

They made a feeble attempt at a rebuttal, with some pathetic excuses as to why it was so weak.

They rebutted him handily. After taking a look at some of his materials, it seems clear to me that his comebacks were simply more fluff. I debunked one of his 'comebacks' and all you could say was that I used the material he was rebutting. I was able to do so because his supposed 'comeback' was nothing but fluff that was destroyed by the very material he was allegedly rebutting.

 

[scott3x]

.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2161251&postcount=1714

So you BELIEVE what you don't understand. That is better? You have already decided what you want to believe so you listen to someone that tells you what you want to hear.

Why don't you demand something as simple as accurate data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC? Why shouldn't we expect such simple information after SEVEN YEARS. On JREF MacKey has told me to read the entire NIST report after I have pointed out that it does not even specify the total amount of CONCRETE in the towers. I have downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and searched it dozens of times but I am not about to read 10,000 pages that don't contain simple and obviously important information. When I ask about accurate info on the distribution of steel and concrete he claims it is irrelevant.

psik

Calculations have been done as to the weight of the steel and the concrete in the towers. Perhaps this hasn't been done in terms of the distribution. However, it seems to me that all the greats of the 9/11 truth movement find that this information isn't necessary to determine that the WTC collapses couldn't have occurred the way they did if indeed they could have occurred at all without controlled demolitions.

 

[scott3x]

Seeing the WTC Collapses thread as a whole

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 1304 in this thread.

Thanks, man..not trying to be a netiquette nanny..just nesting is generally frowned on, as it burns extra bandwidth by posting redundant, unnecessary data...and it's hard to read.

I nest so much because of the thread structure in sciforums, as opposed to, say, democratic underground, which I find to be much easier to follow.

I find that nesting sometimes makes it a lot easier to follow what's going on. I've been known to go back up to 6 posts before the one I'm responding to (with shaman_), just to understand what we were originally talking about- I can do this with relative ease because I have flow charts of the first 1000 posts in this thread and what post any given post is in response to (or if it's starting a new subthread, I record that too), up to post 1213. I have a strong feeling, however, that no one else has spent the time to do this type of thing.

Yep, nobody has done that.

Actually, I started typing out the reply structure. If I typed up the whole thing and posted it online, anyone would be able to see it. However, I stopped because I was having trouble simply keeping up in my notebook. Yesterday, I spent a lot of time finally getting both the reply structure and my flowcharts up to post 1712.

There were actually a couple of times when I thought about doing something like that on the Dawkins site but it never happened.

I made a video and am working on a second, so enough already.

Nods . For me, I rather like being able to get to the post a certain post is responding to.. and sometimes posts before that one as well. One thing I personally find to be invaluable when responding to old posts is knowing that I or someone else hasn't already responded to it. This is the main reason I started doing the flowcharts.

 

[scott3x]

The goal- no good post left behind

This post is in response to MacGyver's post 1354 in this thread.

Scott..I mean this in the best possible way..stop responding to replys from 500 post ago, and join in on the current discussion!! Its been really good lately.

I respond to the current forum somewhat. But I -love- responding to shaman_'s old posts sometimes. I love it because I believe my previous responses aid in backing up my points even more- essentially focusing more and more on where shaman_'s viewpoints are weak.

Dude...there's a 12 step program for that. Come on!! you can respond to those old post later. There's good active discussion in this thread right now, and you should take advantage of that.

If I responded to those 'old posts later', as you say, they would probably never be responded to at all, laugh ;-). Anyway, I'll have you know that the old post response thing usually only has about a 400 post gap between then and now.

However, I've been thinking recently that perhaps they can wait, if there's something interesting going on in the present. I originally decided to respond to all of shaman_'s posts because he frequently seemed to think that I wasn't paying attention to what he was saying- and in a sense he may have been partially right as I simply couldn't even read, let alone respond to everyone's posts addressing me. So I decided to not skip a single important post. shaman_ however, hasn't responded to many of my old posts; I believe the main difference between us is that I don't mind repeatedly trying to teach him the same things over and over again .

On the subject of time delays when responding to messages, did anyone see "The Lake House" with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock? I loved it