Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 46
34
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Really, did you read any of the NIST report? They are mentioned in there, they were obtained by the NIST engineers and investigators from the Port Authority of Newark and New York. They have them. The NIST probably has copies. All the columns were horizontally connected to each other with floor beams that formed the frame for the floors in the core area.


I have already said I downloaded and burned the report to DVD 3 yeas ago. I provided the list of reports from that DVD and quotes from it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
Really, did you read any of the NIST report? They are mentioned in there, they were obtained by the NIST engineers and investigators from the Port Authority of Newark and New York. They have them. The NIST probably has copies. All the columns were horizontally connected to each other with floor beams that formed the frame for the floors in the core area.


I have already said I downloaded and burned the report to DVD 3 yeas ago. I provided the list of reports from that DVD and quotes from it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik


But did you read it? Apparently not. They refer to all the material that they used to do their investigation and yet you keep asking what material is available.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
Really, did you read any of the NIST report? They are mentioned in there, they were obtained by the NIST engineers and investigators from the Port Authority of Newark and New York. They have them. The NIST probably has copies. All the columns were horizontally connected to each other with floor beams that formed the frame for the floors in the core area.


I have already said I downloaded and burned the report to DVD 3 yeas ago. I provided the list of reports from that DVD and quotes from it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik


But did you read it? Apparently not. They refer to all the material that they used to do their investigation and yet you keep asking what material is available.


I already said anybody that reads those 10,000 pages is CRAZY.

The event of 9/11 is more important than that report. The fact that they do not emphasize the importance of the distribution of mass advertises their stupidity. However they did say in 3 places that the information in necessary to analyze the impact. But then they didn't do it.

I already demonstrated the effect:

www.youtube.com...

The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about any particular report. If the report does not make proper us of physics then it is garbage.

psik



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Honestly, at least read the relevant sections. Often-times professional papers will cite their sources, which you can then follow up on and get the data you want. I just looked at part of the report and found the information they used for their models from two sources, and I also found that they delved into the various grades of steel used in the towers. I'm not motivated enough to do in-depth research on LESA's model, as it appears to be a contracted work for them to detail the tower in a computer model, but you might be able to FOIA it. Would have to ask others if they can find anything, I'm too tired tonight.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You can't ignore the horizontal supports when modelling a collapse. If you had an impossibly strong horizontal support system (like the broom psikey used in his model), then the collapse would certainly arrest.

Ah I see what you talking about now. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't see how this affects is to any significant degree. Can you explain?


Yes, it takes energy, but guess how it can re-generate the same energy it used to crush/impact the first floor? The same amount of space will be available for acceleration on each successive floor, if my imaginings are correct.

It doesn't need to just regenerate the same energy, it needs to generate much more energy (higher mass and higher velocity). There were still a very large number of columns between floors. Unlike at the impact zone, these columns were undamaged.

Accelerating through the damaged impact zone is one thing. Accelerating through undamaged levels is another.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


How do you know they do not address it if you did not read it? Realize how ignorant that statement is. Where do you do your research then. From what? If you read it you would know what NIST does. That is what is getting humorous and sad but it is very true.

You do not need evidence, reports or fact to make a decision...just an opinion which everyone has just like



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I already said anybody that reads those 10,000 pages is CRAZY.

And what do you say about somone who keeps making claims about what is and what is not in the report but admits that they haven't read it?

The event of 9/11 is more important than that report.

Huh?

The fact that they do not emphasize the importance of the distribution of mass advertises their stupidity.

Actually they do talk about it, read it first. Its quite simple. The design of the building is pretty uniform above the lower floors, the grade of steel is changed as the building progresses. You are confused by the simplistic notion that the only way to make something stronger is to make it heavier.

However they did say in 3 places that the information in necessary to analyze the impact. But then they didn't do it.

How would you know?

I already demonstrated the effect:

Nah, no you didn't. You demonstrated the effect of dropping plumbing washers and construction paper in a broom handle.

The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about any particular report. If the report does not make proper us of physics then it is garbage.

And if you don't read said report, you can't know what is in it.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Ah I see what you talking about now. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't see how this affects is to any significant degree. Can you explain?


Well, in terms of an object colliding with another object in a downward direction, you have the force of gravity and angle acting upon the object below. The initial collapse fell straight down in one tower and very much at an angle in the other tower (one side of the tower was very much holding on and acted as a hinge which pivoted the upper floors downward until they crushed completely into the building. It was during this destruction that the complete collapse was initiated.

The horizontal supports in a collapse model are entirely necessary to be at least somewhat present because the collapse was not a box lands on box scenario. As I depicted above, the angles change everything, and also the integrity of the various support systems are very important. Psikey's model clearly interprets perhaps just the core columns impacting only themselves in a block-hits-block system, implying that 1: they fell straight down onto the other supports and that 2: they had entirely solid mass with no separable joints. The horizontal supports are entirely important here because using the broom handle as he did is like adding a giant titanium rod through the center of the core in the towers. If that was there, I'm certain the outcome would have been different. I don't imagine that the collapsing floors would entirely arrest, but it would certainly provide a great deal of protection to the core, and perhaps stop the collapse from initiating in the first place.



It doesn't need to just regenerate the same energy, it needs to generate much more energy (higher mass and higher velocity). There were still a very large number of columns between floors. Unlike at the impact zone, these columns were undamaged.

Accelerating through the damaged impact zone is one thing. Accelerating through undamaged levels is another.


The thing is that the floors were not designed to withstand dynamic impacts. The first crush-impact effect from the initial collapse would overload any design loads that the horizontal supports were meant to take. It would be akin to dropping a bowling ball on a glued together line of popsicle sticks (don't quote the simile for factual weights). It won't be slowed down very much. As it goes, once the horizontal supports fail simply from the initial impact, then the lateral debris will twist and bend the vertical supports, because the collapse didn't move as a solid block crushing a lower block. It was far more dynamic.

As we may remember, part of the core columns in Tower 1 remained standing for a bit after the collapse. This should reveal a great deal about how that collapse progressed compared to the complete destruction of Tower 2. Now, in Tower 2 the initial collapse folded in on the building, causing more lateral damage to begin taking place. The dynamics of that collapse would have severely damaged the integrity of the core's vertical supports right away and allowed for a much more thorough destruction.
Tower 1 on the other hand fell very close to straight down, also indicating that it had more damage to a single floor of core supports. The thing is, because there was less initial horizontal force on the core columns, they mostly just sheared away during collapse, leaving some still standing after the collapse progressed completely.

Hope this makes sense.
edit on 1-5-2011 by Varemia because: typo



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I already said anybody that reads those 10,000 pages is CRAZY.

And what do you say about somone who keeps making claims about what is and what is not in the report but admits that they haven't read it?


I say they are SMART enough to know how to search a 10,000 page document that is in computer readable form to figure out what IMPORTANT INFORMATION is not in it. It is not like it is only on paper.

Put your brain in gear and figure out what is going to matter to the physics of what supposedly happened and what could be seen to happen and then check the document to see if it was put into the report.

What about the top of the south tower tilting? The NIST report has the degrees of tilt in two planes. But then they say nothing about the center of mass of 29 stories of the building and make no attempt to explain why it did not fall down the side.

Then there is the fact that the weight of steel and concrete must be properly distributed to hold up against gravity and withstand the wind. Where is that specified in their 10,000 pages. They don't even have the total for the concrete. I have been pointing that out for going on four years. Not one person has said where that info is in the report.

psik



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I say they are SMART enough to know how to search a 10,000 page document that is in computer readable form to figure out what IMPORTANT INFORMATION is not in it. It is not like it is only on paper.

Oh, I see. You didn't bother reading the report, you just did a search looking for your particluar brand of whacky physics theory. Now that makes sense. Read it. Maybe, just maybe, the information you so desire is there, just not in the form you think it should take.

Put your brain in gear and figure out what is going to matter to the physics of what supposedly happened and what could be seen to happen and then check the document to see if it was put into the report.

Done and done. Its in there. Read it, you'll see.

What about the top of the south tower tilting? The NIST report has the degrees of tilt in two planes. But then they say nothing about the center of mass of 29 stories of the building and make no attempt to explain why it did not fall down the side.

How do you know? What did you search? "fall down on side"?

Then there is the fact that the weight of steel and concrete must be properly distributed to hold up against gravity and withstand the wind.

Read it, they talk extensively about the design theory and wind resistance and how the buildings reacted. You might learn a think or two.

Where is that specified in their 10,000 pages. They don't even have the total for the concrete. I have been pointing that out for going on four years. Not one person has said where that info is in the report.

Actually, again they go into quite a bit of detail to describe the concrete design of the building. However, the total weight of the concrete is, as we all know, totally irrelevant. But there is sufficient information for you to deduce your own information. By the way, is there some secret distribtuion formula that would allow the impact to cause the collapse? If so, how do you know that formula was not represented in the final design? If not, how do you know and why do you keep asking the same moot question?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
the truth always prevails at the end .. the sad thing in this case .. its been 10 yrs and nothing was proven yet


Nah it was proven... just ignored... like everything else that goes against their beliefs and agenda.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Again with the concrete. What is it with you? Yes, there was concrete. Alot of it. As well as the computers, desks and even people who were in there.

I will ask this again since you always avoid. so, if you knew how much concrete, what would you do?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I say they are SMART enough to know how to search a 10,000 page document that is in computer readable form to figure out what IMPORTANT INFORMATION is not in it. It is not like it is only on paper.

Oh, I see. You didn't bother reading the report, you just did a search looking for your particluar brand of whacky physics theory. Now that makes sense. Read it. Maybe, just maybe, the information you so desire is there, just not in the form you think it should take.


And you can CLAIM that wanting to know the CENTER OF MASS of the top 26% by height of a 500,000 ton building is whacky.

And I can EXPLAIN why not wanting to know the CENTER OF MASS of that portion is STUPID!

The NIST admits that that portion of the building tilted 22%. The NIST also admits the the core of the building supported 53% of the weight of the building.

So where that CENTER OF MASS was located could be very important to determining if that upper portion should have fallen down the side.The vast majority of the weight should have been on one side of the intact portion below and if the center of mass was beyond the edge of the core then it certainly should have come down the side. So for the NIST to not even mention the data means they are doing STUPID PHYSICS. It is just a question of whether it is DELIBERATE stupid physics or ACCIDENTAL stupid physics.

But for this nonsense to drag on for TEN YEARS means there must be a significant amount of STUPID PHYSICS going on out there. Like a lot of physicists at engineering schools deliberately avoiding this issue.

So where is your physical model that can completely collapse oh brilliant physicist?

www.youtube.com...

psik
edit on 1-5-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Not stupid physics, just people who do not understand them.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Again with the concrete. What is it with you? Yes, there was concrete. Alot of it. As well as the computers, desks and even people who were in there.

I will ask this again since you always avoid. so, if you knew how much concrete, what would you do?


Tourist brochures from before 9/11 say there was 425.000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel. That figure for the steel agrees with what the NIST says for both buildings.

So if both buildings had 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that is:

212,500 cu. yd. per building 212500 * 27 = 5,737,500 cu. ft per building

There were two types of concrete used according to the WTC, 150 lb/cu ft and 110 lb/cu ft

That means a minimum of 315,562.5 tons per building and a maximum of 430,312.5.

The only things I KNOW were light weight concrete were the 84 standard floor assemblies so that would reduct the weight by 18,000 tons so lets say the max was 410,000 tons.

Here is a quote from 2001:


I've seen articles that stae there was around 200 thousnad tons of concrete in the WTC, add to that the steelwork and everything else.

boards.straightdope.com...

So how is accurate physics supposed to be done with information this inaccurate?

Here is my "MAGICAL" Python program that shows the mass distribution affects the collapse time even without the strength of material necessary to hold the weight.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

The WTC had to be strong enough to support the weight of the STATIC LOAD however it was distributed. So the physics cannot be done with any degree of accuracy without that information. The physics profession has spent NINE PLUS YEARS making a fool of itself by not demanding the information.

Provide us with a link saying there was as much as 50,000 tons of computers in the WTC. As long as we don't have accurate distribution data on the concrete the computers are irrelevant. The NIST can't even specify a total.

I don't understand how people can defend that much STUPIDITY!

psik
edit on 1-5-2011 by psikeyhackr because: floor calculations



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Not stupid physics, just people who do not understand them.


Like you who hasn't built a model of anything. You can just CLAIM other people don't understand.

What computer programs have you written simulating anything about the towers? Purdue did a great job with their simulation. The core columns don't move and thereby contradict the NIST. So which one of them DOES NOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS?


psik



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I started with CAD on a Mac in 87 in my first high school drafting class. Used lots of different software since then but when I was in school it was still more of carrying your portfolio for your blueprints/doing most of it by hand for architecture. All we were rendering at that time were gears and mechanics. Currently, if I want to model something I use 3dMax for Imaging and rendering(really cool)/Vegas for Video editing/Adobe 3.0 for audio. I also do alot of rendering in a few game engines with my son.

As far as physical models, yes, we had to create those too and they were better than the washer model but sorry I never designed a WTC complex, nothing over 3 stories was I involved in . A few houses, a few commercial buildings and that's it.

Does that matter, no, but there you go. Now, here is a document about not the need for how much concrete but the need to in the future protect. It is a draft...

wtc.nist.gov...

there are also multiple links and I will post one that state there were over 400000 tons of concrete.

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

I would think these guys would be correct. Why do you not look this stuff up yourself?
edit on 1-5-2011 by esdad71 because: spelling
edit on 1-5-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
As far as physical models, yes, we had to create those too and they were better than the washer model but sorry I never designed a WTC complex, nothing over 3 stories was I involved in . A few houses, a few commercial buildings and that's it.


I'm not talking about ANY MODEL, I am talking about a model related to 9/11.

I already said there were sources specifying 425,000 cu yds of concrete and that is what your link says. I have known about that number for years. But that number does not specify the distribution down the buildings and it has not been confirmed by any OFFICIAL SOURCE since 9/11. Like I said, "The NIST does not specify any total for the concrete.

So how is any analysis of the impact or collapse supposed to be regarded as SCIENTIFIC without correct distributions of steel and concrete. So what kind of idiots does that make all of the people with degrees in physics since 1980 and haven't been demanding that information?

psik



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You would take a set of blue prints of the floors you wanted to recreate. Not that hard. You would know how much concrete should be on each floor and there were different density's so make sure it is correct as well as the types pf steel as they were different floor to floor in some cases.

It is not an easy task and not something I have the time to do but have at it. Maybe you could find the missing link.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What computer programs have you written simulating anything about the towers? Purdue did a great job with their simulation. The core columns don't move and thereby contradict the NIST. So which one of them DOES NOT UNDERSTAND PHYSICS?


Please elaborate. The Purdue model shows the columns moving to the limits of the time frame of the animation model.



top topics
 
34
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join