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

reply to post by psikeyhackr


OK, first, you model as it relates to 9/11 sucks. It is a 3rd grade physics model at best. Next, if you are so good with modeling, take a the blueprints and build a real scale model. You have been given the amount of steel but you have to calculate it. You have the figures for concrete so calculate it. I am sure you have a computer that those 'guys' who sent people to the moon with so use it.

Why also are you attacking high school physics teachers? I have asked and still have not gotten it but HOW do they collapse if you all do not believe the OS?

9./11 happened so unless new physics were made that day, it used current physical law to collapse. If you do not believe NOVA's videos nor the findings of NIST, tell us in detail what happened. I do not think you can nor any of your other cohorts.....give it a shot...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

How about this?

en.wikinews.org...

It is tilting and the problem was with a CD.

SO!?

I have seen it before but I have never seen any mention of how many feet straight down it fell or how much it weighed.

If anything it implies the the towers should not have been able to crush themselves. Obviously that structure was too strong to crush itself with its own inertia even though supposedly analyzed and prepared.. So how could airliners with presumably unpredicted impact points have done it?

It was the CORE that supported most of the weight of the WTC. But that just happens to be what we don't have data on. Like nothing about all of the horizontal beams.

psik

I was showing that explosives are not infallible. The CORE did not support most of the weight and you cannot find that anywhere because there is no data because it is not true. The inner core(columns) and the outer core were used in conjunction to support the towers. That statement itself shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. However, even if it did support 'most', then when those inner columns fail and the outer also, what held it up? The WTC was designed in a very unique way and no one will admit to that. It is a tube structure but not common.

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

How about this?

en.wikinews.org...

It is tilting and the problem was with a CD.

SO!?

I have seen it before but I have never seen any mention of how many feet straight down it fell or how much it weighed.

If anything it implies the the towers should not have been able to crush themselves. Obviously that structure was too strong to crush itself with its own inertia even though supposedly analyzed and prepared.. So how could airliners with presumably unpredicted impact points have done it?

It was the CORE that supported most of the weight of the WTC. But that just happens to be what we don't have data on. Like nothing about all of the horizontal beams.

psik

I was showing that explosives are not infallible. The CORE did not support most of the weight and you cannot find that anywhere because there is no data because it is not true. The inner core(columns) and the outer core were used in conjunction to support the towers. That statement itself shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. However, even if it did support 'most', then when those inner columns fail and the outer also, what held it up? The WTC was designed in a very unique way and no one will admit to that. It is a tube structure but not common.

I have never been talking about explosives. I have not been talking about controlled demolition.

I have been saying the top of the north tower could not come straight down and destroy the rest and that we need accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete.

You are just trying to associate me with what I don't discuss and advertising how bad your position is in the process.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You have stated that there needs to be another source of energy but you never provide anything or an even an idea. If you feel that it did not fit the laws of physics then what was the other source of energy. It does not matter how much steel or concrete since you do not include that in your model. You are stating it did not have either the stored energy or after the initiating collapse enough mass to continue to fall.

So, what do you feel added the extra energy?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

OK, first, you model as it relates to 9/11 sucks. It is a 3rd grade physics model at best.

Why also are you attacking high school physics teachers? I have asked and still have not gotten it but HOW do they collapse if you all do not believe the OS?

What happened on 9/11 is GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS!

Every level of the WTC had to have mass even though we are not told how much. The weight of the concrete floor slab outside the core can be computed on the basis of its dimensions and density. It was 600 TONS. It is certainly curious that we never hear that from any official sources.

The buildings, like all buildings, had to support their mass against gravity. So it had to get stronger and stronger all of the way down. But making it stronger means adding more steel. But adding more steel means making each level heavier.

So regardless of what destroyed the buildings to not have accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete after NINE YEARS is CRIMINAL. Yeah the Physics Teachers and the people running the engineering schools all need to be slapped up side the head.

The WTC was over 400,000 TONS. My model is less than 4 pounds. So there is a 100,000,000 to 1 difference.

That is why I can use paper instead of steel. But every paper loop must support the weight of all of the washers above. So my paper loops had to get stronger going down. That is why I have 11 single loops and 17 double loops and 5 triple loops. I also sorted the washers so that the thicker, heavier ones are toward the bottom.

So my model demonstrates, gravitational acceleration, kinetic energy, conservation of momentum, buckling of supports for static loads and potential energy. That is the difference between a physical model and a computer. A physical model cannot escape REAL PHYSICS. A computer has to have virtual physics programmed inot it and it is easy to get wrong either accidentally or DELIBERATELY. The core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation but the NIST says the south tower moved.

The trouble is that if people regard my model as valid then they must conclude that the north tower should not have completely collapsed. If they do that then they must also conclude that the official story is GARBAGE.

So why can't any engineering school build a physical model that can collapse completely?

But if that is IMPOSSIBLE then....

psik

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You have stated that there needs to be another source of energy but you never provide anything or an even an idea. If you feel that it did not fit the laws of physics then what was the other source of energy. It does not matter how much steel or concrete since you do not include that in your model. You are stating it did not have either the stored energy or after the initiating collapse enough mass to continue to fall.

So, what do you feel added the extra energy?

Physics is NOT ABOUT FEELINGS!

I don't know what did it and I almost DO NOT CARE. Our engineering schools should have PROVEN airliners could do it years ago if that is the case. But in order to prove it they would have to know and reveal accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete.

So when have they even discussed it in the last NINE YEARS?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


"Showing feeling of an almost human nature...that will not do...." pink floyd....


I wanted to know your thoughts...on what brought it down...not for ammo but to understand.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

"Showing feeling of an almost human nature...that will not do...." pink floyd....

I wanted to know your thoughts...on what brought it down...not for ammo but to understand.

Try understanding physics instead.

The plutonium did not give a damn about the people in Nagasaki.

The airliners were inanimate objects. The skyscrapers were inanimate objects.

Whether or not those airliners could destroy those buildings in less than two hours is nothing but physics and engineering and engineering is nothing but applied physics.

Feelings are irrelevant, patriotism is irrelevant, Islam is irrelevant to the analysis of the physics.

Distribution of MASS is relevant. Kinetic Energy is relevant. The force and energy required to collapse the core is relevant.

Deal with it!!!

Try this instead of Pink Floyd.

The Cold Equations by Tom Godwin
www.spacewesterns.com...

I admit that I get ANGRY when people don't see something so simple and so obvious.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Deal with what? Simply asking, since you disagree with the common version of the story, what you think happened that day. Why can none of you do this.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Deal with what? Simply asking, since you disagree with the common version of the story, what you think happened that day. Why can none of you do this.

Why can't you build a physical model that can completely collapse?

It is not my fault that you think rhetorical bullsh# is more important than physics.

You presume that you can use words to recreate your delusions in other people's minds.

Physics is incapable of caring about words or delusions.

www.youtube.com...

Just ask the NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But making it stronger means adding more steel.

No, it doesn't. You know that NIST report that you downloaded and copied? Well you should try and read it. Not use the search function to find magical physics words, but actually read it, word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph and page by page. The answers you seek, assuming you have any clue what you are seeking, are probably in there.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But making it stronger means adding more steel.

No, it doesn't. You know that NIST report that you downloaded and copied? Well you should try and read it. Not use the search function to find magical physics words, but actually read it, word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph and page by page. The answers you seek, assuming you have any clue what you are seeking, are probably in there.

YAWN

Were you actually trying to say something?

So you can IMPLY what ain't there is there. I am SO impressed.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Deal with what? Simply asking, since you disagree with the common version of the story, what you think happened that day. Why can none of you do this.

Why can't you build a physical model that can completely collapse?

It is not my fault that you think rhetorical bullsh# is more important than physics.

You presume that you can use words to recreate your delusions in other people's minds.

Physics is incapable of caring about words or delusions.

www.youtube.com...

Just ask the NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.

psik

Because today we have computers that can do it for you. Of course, there is still wind tunnel testing and I have already talked about that. However, physics can be recreated with a home pc now so your washers are nice but again not applicable.


You preach physics but state that they were not present on 9/11 based on the information that the NIST report does not include. So what. You can find it in other places but you will not allow yourself to believe that.

Again, I ask, without mentioning concrete, how the collapse occurred. No rhetoric here psik just a question.

Originally posted by esdad71

Because today we have computers that can do it for you.

Computers can only tell us what we already know, and you can make them say anything depending on the human input. Computer models are not really reliable, especially when it is used to claim something that is questionable in the first place.

Physical models are still the way to go for real analysis.

reply to post by ANOK


That is your opinion and not a fact. Physical models are used for wind tunnel testing but computer models are more than sufficient.

If that is true, then you are stating that all computer models should not be used for anything. Do you realize how ignorant that is?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

That is your opinion and not a fact.

Yes it is a fact lol.

If that is true, then you are stating that all computer models should not be used for anything. Do you realize how ignorant that is?

Do you realise how ignorant it is to say a computer model is going to show anything other than the human input?

Do you realise how ignorant it is to think that no one could possibly put in the input that is going to give them the result they want you to see?

If I don't trust the source of the computer model, do you really expect me to trust the model?

Show me a physical model with the same results, and then and only then can it be a trustful result.

Hi All

Haven't been on for a few weeks due to work,holidays etc had a quick look at some posts I have missed but will do some reading to catch up.

This is a quick post to psikeyhackr and ANOK re physical models and computer models.

First psikeyhackr do you think your model video you link to is a good match fot the WTC physics ? I dont its far to simplistic. It dosent take into account everything required and MATERIAL strengths dont scale the way you think!

ANOK as for computer models being wrong, they run tried and tested formulas that engineers use EVERYDAY but at a greatly accelerated speed THATS ALL.

Computer models are used in all branches of science so who is wrong YOU or all the scientists that use them.

Its right to say that a computer model could never get the positions of all components in exactly the right place say after the impact or explosion of the planes and fuel, but they run using what we know regarding physical properties of materials, forces etc and how they interact with each other.

There is also one simple fact YOU guys have ignored since this event happened YOU AND I dont know exactly what damage was caused buy the impact, explosion and the fires! its that simple so what you cant know and dont know effects the outcome.

I mean if we just have a look at the exaggerated claims made by people that believe the same as you for instance.

"The concrete was all turned into dust you see it in the collapse"

Now the IDIOTS that think that seem to have forgot about all the sheetrock thousands of m sq in the building that WOULD have turned to dust and that was seen in the collapse but they dont mention that!

Also if you look at pictures posted earlier in the thread large sections of lower steelwork survived still bolted together it didn't help the building but those sections survived the collapse.

I still think a major problem with the design was the floors, they could fall internally within the structure as they were bolted to the inside of the walls.

Will read through the pages I have missed and will post back later.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
ANOK as for computer models being wrong, they run tried and tested formulas that engineers use EVERYDAY but at a greatly accelerated speed THATS ALL.

Do any of you ever read? Where did I say computer models are wrong?



You are missing the point. Computer models are fine as long as the input is known accurate, and can be trusted. You can make a computer model show anything you want it to depending on the input. For example, if I input three times the actual mass of one floor then the outcome will not be accurate, will it?

So, point is computer models can be very easily manipulated, and can not be trusted in the context of an investigation. Now a physical model is another story, isn't it?

reply to post by ANOK


Do you remember what you write?

ANOK - Computers can only tell us what we already know, and you can make them say anything depending on the human input. Computer models are not really reliable, especially when it is used to claim something that is questionable in the first place.

Physical models are still the way to go for real analysis.

There are thousands of applications for computers in engineering but you are pushing it aside. If you truly think a physical model is better, it is an opinion once again and not a fact. Have you ever used any type of modeling software to see exactly what can be accomplished?

The WTC used models in wind tunnel testing and after that testing, the design was modified to include the viscoelastic damper or 'bumpers' to decrease the sway since people were becoming sick in testing the design.

Experiments were also done to evaluate how much sway occupants could tolerate. Subjects were recruited for "free eye exams," while the real purpose of the experiment was to subject them to simulated building sway and find out how much they could comfortably tolerate.[58] Many subjects did not respond well, experiencing dizziness and other ill effects. One of the chief engineers Leslie Robertson worked with Canadian engineer Alan G. Davenport to develop viscoelastic dampers to absorb some of the sway. These viscoelastic dampers, used throughout the structures at the joints between floor trusses and perimeter columns, along with some other structural modifications reduced the building sway to an acceptable level

Also, we got the go ahead for a debate so please start to finalize the topic.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

Do you remember what you write?

There are thousands of applications for computers in engineering but you are pushing it aside. If you truly think a physical model is better, it is an opinion once again and not a fact. Have you ever used any type of modeling software to see exactly what can be accomplished?

Yes I remember what I 'wrote', are you even reading what I say, or do you just automatically disagree with everyone?

Of course a physical model is better. Yes I have used modeling software, have you? Software is dependent on human input. If the figures are not correct the model will not be correct, why is that so hard for you to understand?

The WTC used models in wind tunnel testing and after that testing, the design was modified to include the viscoelastic damper or 'bumpers' to decrease the sway since people were becoming sick in testing the design.

And what does that prove? Did you take into consideration your bellow quote when you wrote that?

Experiments were also done to evaluate how much sway occupants could tolerate. Subjects were recruited for "free eye exams," while the real purpose of the experiment was to subject them to simulated building sway and find out how much they could comfortably tolerate.[58] Many subjects did not respond well, experiencing dizziness and other ill effects. One of the chief engineers Leslie Robertson worked with Canadian engineer Alan G. Davenport to develop viscoelastic dampers to absorb some of the sway. These viscoelastic dampers, used throughout the structures at the joints between floor trusses and perimeter columns, along with some other structural modifications reduced the building sway to an acceptable level

How does that prove computer models can not be fudged? Are you missing the point again? That test provided them the information about how people would react to the sway of the building. They added dampers because of the results of the test. LOL are trying to spin that as if it proves physical models are no good, and computer models are better?

Also, we got the go ahead for a debate so please start to finalize the topic.

Hey mate you pick the topic you want to debate, I'll decide if I want to accept the topic OK?

So BTW you admit you lied then? I thought you already new it couldn't happen, after making the challenge? You're a trip mate. Better brush up on the laws of motion because no matter the topic, I am going to overwhelm you with relevant physics.