Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

reply to post by hooper


How could the distribution of steel and concrete not be relevant?

Try telling that to a demolition company when they need to know how much explosives to use and where to put it.



More nonsense just to simply argue with 'truthers'.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I'll get a saw.

How are you going to know what kind of saw unless I tell you what the distribution of bark and leaves is on the limb?

Have you noticed that the vast majority a scientists seem to be saying NOTHING about the subject?

First, its not the vast majority. Thats an understatement. It is, for all intents and purposes, all scientist, engineers and technical professionals. Second, I'll tell you why - because it is not a "subject". It doesn't exist as a matter of concern outside of a few conspiracy websites. Its a non-issue. Really.

The Empire State Building will be 80 years old this year. This ain't rocket science.

Well, actually it is. Its very complicated and the engineers who designed and oversaw the construction were very intelligent. I would place them intellectually with any "rocket scientist".

But this whole thing is definitely very weird psychologically. But Einstein already commented on it.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

And just think, he said that without ever seeing an internet conspiracy website!

The United States should be laughed at for the next 1,000 years over this nonsense.

Whatever. I don't see anyone laughing.

reply to post by ANOK

How could the distribution of steel and concrete not be relevant?

Because it doesn't even have a meaning. Distribution of steel and concrete? What does that even mean? The steel was where it was and the concrete was where it was in accordance with the design drawings and the as-built documents.

Try telling that to a demolition company when they need to know how much explosives to use and where to put it.

I was the project manager on the demolition of over 300 bridges and buildings, I was never once asked what the "distribtution of steel and concrete" was on any of those structures. Next week I have to go and look at another building and prepare bid documents and specifications for its demolition. I will gaurantee you that the issue of steel and concrete "distribution" will not be breached.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I'll get a saw.

How are you going to know what kind of saw unless I tell you what the distribution of bark and leaves is on the limb?

Brilliant!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

How could the distribution of steel and concrete not be relevant?

Because it doesn't even have a meaning. Distribution of steel and concrete? What does that even mean? The steel was where it was and the concrete was where it was in accordance with the design drawings and the as-built documents.

So provide us with a link showing the arrangement of the horizontal beams of the core. They are not in any blueprints I have seen even though toilets are.

Sorry to strain your intellect with a word like DISTRIBUTION.

By distribution of steel I am talking about the tons of steel on each level. The core columns and the walls of the perimeter box columns had to get thicker down the building in order to support more weight. Therefore the tons of steel progressively increased. That also meant it would take more energy to collapse the levels.

So it is certainly interesting that physicists including Steven Jones have not been discussing such a simple fact about skyscrapers for nearly TEN YEARS.

Stronger supports for the static loads would mean greater resistance to the dynamic load.

www.youtube.com...

Still no comment from Mackey for my using his video.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
Because it doesn't even have a meaning. Distribution of steel and concrete? What does that even mean? The steel was where it was and the concrete was where it was in accordance with the design drawings and the as-built documents.

Are you kidding?

I was the project manager on the demolition of over 300 bridges and buildings, I was never once asked what the "distribtution of steel and concrete" was on any of those structures. Next week I have to go and look at another building and prepare bid documents and specifications for its demolition. I will gaurantee you that the issue of steel and concrete "distribution" will not be breached.

No you're not. This is the first time I've heard you make this claim lol.

If you don't know the distribution of steel and concrete how do you figure how much explosives are required and where to put them?

The demolition of large steel structures is virtually a separate discipline within general demolition. The transfer and distribution of loads is different to that encountered in reinforced concrete or brick structures.

Steel is generally approached on the basis of first getting it down to ground level, and then processing it to a size suitable for re-sale. With the weights and heights involved there is obviously a potential for danger. This is overcome by the use of skilled labour and experienced management. It is essential that there is a knowledge of how structures actually react during demolition. Original design has various factors of safety built in whereas these are not relevant for bringing the structure down.

The key to success is detailed preparation by pre-cutting. This allows for later removal of supporting elements, but without disturbing the stability of the structure. The main demolition is then brought about by the supports being taken out either by a machine pulling or by explosive driving charges. This is done from a safe distance, with no risk to the workforce.

www.demolition.co.za...

How can you know the load distribution, or how the building will react during demolition, if you don't know the distribution of the concrete and steel?

Who do you work for hooper, because if you work for a demo company that might explain why you're hear trying to spread disinfo eh?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

By distribution of steel I am talking about the tons of steel on each level. The core columns and the walls of the perimeter box columns had to get thicker down the building in order to support more weight. Therefore the tons of steel progressively increased.

Really? Just for laughs, what to you constitutes a level? Where does one level end and the next level begin? Why does it matter? Oh, by the way, you really must one day sit down and read that NIST report. Your "pyramid" theory of steel strength is addressed in the report. Give it a look.

reply to post by ANOK

If you don't know the distribution of steel and concrete how do you figure how much explosives are required and where to put them?

Uh, by the design of the structure. Load bearing elements vs. non-load bearing elements. Identifying fracture critical elements. It has nothing to do with weight. As to the quantity and placement of explosives, it depends on the type and position of the load bearing elements. But there is some "trial and error". You rarely hear about it on the 'internet" but the blaster will often have a test blast to determine charge loads. One of the structures we took down had 6' diameter concrete columns with heavy rebar schedule. The blaster did an experimental blast on one of the non-critical columns to determine the approximate charge load. But still there is a fair amount of guess work based on experience. But they don't always get it exactly right. One time we were taking down a huge bridge abutment. The contractor just wanted to "crack" the abutment (concrete) so it would be easier to take apart mechnaically. Well a very experience blaster drilled holes in the abutment and loaded the holes. Thankfully this was in a fairly remote rural area. The load "cracked" the abutment and some of the cracked pieces flew about 100 yards! In conclusion, its not an exact science, the weight of the elements can only be estimated and is completely irrelevant. Its the elements ability to resist energy that counts and thats a function of the type of the material, not the weight. Think of a block of steel that weights a ton a block of wood that weights a ton, the wieght is irrelevant with regard to the amount of energy it will take to open them up.

reply to post by hooper


So? Is what we see on the videos of 911 what is being described in the NIST report? Can we see on the video one floor pancaking on the next, because the fires caused one floor to crash on the one below causing a chain reaction? Even the energy beams from outer space theory has more legs to stand on. It might be based on theories and experiments produced by a hoaxer most likely and probably in the realm of fiction, but at least it does not totally ignore what has been observed and captured on video that day.

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm not on a team so you can quote away all you want mate, I have no control over what other people say. Be sure to include me though just so I can get a better idea of what you're not understanding.

It was you who started the generalisations.

When you make the claim that NIST, or whoever, is correct because they are an authority, then that is an appeal to authority.

Yes. But that's not what I did, is it?

Just because scientists don't publicly dismiss the OS it doesn't mean they support it. Do you know what an appeal to authority is? Because you just made one.

No I didn't. An "appeal to authority" requires the assumption that the authority is a priori infallible. I don't think this. I just think that it's safe to assume that the belief that a majority of scientists agree with the Truth Movement but are mysteriously silent on the issue is unlikely. You apparently do not, so perhaps you'd like to explain why.

A personal insult to anyone who questions the OS. My English is not the problem your comprehension skills are.

"Personal" means something that pertains to a particular person, not a group. It is in fact your English which, to use a colloquialism, sucks.

Yes that is what I'm claiming, because that is what physics supports.

I don't understand your reasoning here. It seems to me that you think steel is infinitely malleable or something.

This is not an inconclusive photo, you can clearly see the outer walls on top of the debris pile...

It's inconclusive. And indeed your conclusion is not supported by other photographic evidence.

Yes the towers was a different method of demolition. Too tall to be imploded like WTC7.

Why? Who says you can't implode a building of that height?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

By distribution of steel I am talking about the tons of steel on each level. The core columns and the walls of the perimeter box columns had to get thicker down the building in order to support more weight. Therefore the tons of steel progressively increased.

Really? Just for laughs, what to you constitutes a level? Where does one level end and the next level begin? Why does it matter? Oh, by the way, you really must one day sit down and read that NIST report. Your "pyramid" theory of steel strength is addressed in the report. Give it a look.

By level I mean the distance from the distance from the surface of one floor to the surface of the next. For most levels in the WTC that was 12 feet. But the mechanical levels were 14 and some basements were 9.

So I usually mean all of the steel and concrete in a 208 ft by 208 ft square 12 ft high which would include one floor assembly.

Is that too difficult for your comprehension?

The NIST report says in THREE PLACES that the distribution of weight is important to analyzing the aircraft impacts. THEN THEY DON'T DO IT. All you have to do is download the entire report and search it fir "distribution of weight" and "distribution of mass". When they use "distribution of mass" they are usually talking about the plane.

Reading the entire NCSTAR1 report is stupid.

Laugh all you want. You can't figure out what is important that ain't there.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Reading the entire NCSTAR1 report is stupid.

And not reading it and arguing that is wrong and provides no answers is what exactly? It is difficult to comprehend that someone would openly criticize something that they have never read.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Reading the entire NCSTAR1 report is stupid.

And not reading it and arguing that is wrong and provides no answers is what exactly? It is difficult to comprehend that someone would openly criticize something that they have never read.

I already told you it doesn't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and I told you what to search for.

Is that beyond your intellectual capacity?

Where has the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the WTC been discussed in this supposed collapse business?

You are simply promoting the idea that doing useless idiotic busywork is intelligent and then thinking what you are told. Curious that is how our schools operate and then this psychological nonsense can go on for TEN YEARS. 9/11 helps prove that our educators are nitwits.

And our economists can't talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles that has been obvious for decades. Americans have lost how many trillions on the depreciation of that junk?

That is more important than 9/11!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I already told you it doesn't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and I told you what to search for.

You didn't read it.

Is that beyond your intellectual capacity?

Is actually reading beyond yours?

Where has the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the WTC been discussed in this supposed collapse business?

Read the report. The center of mass for that irregular object can never be exactly calculated - only estimated and one way you estimate something about a physical object that you can not exam is to observe its behavior as best you can. The behavior that we observed was that the center of mass in the hinged object was so located so as not to allow it to fall off its supports (the "levels" below it) before those supports failed.

You are simply promoting the idea that doing useless idiotic busywork is intelligent

Are you really admitting that reading is simply idiotic busywork?

Curious that is how our schools operate and then this psychological nonsense can go on for TEN YEARS.

Yes, how dare our schools engage in the idiotic pass time having our students read. They should insist that they be more like you and just simply KNOW everything.

9/11 helps prove that our educators are nitwits.

Yes, and yet we are still graduating doctors and engineers and biologist and all manner of technical professions, we keep inventing things, we keep building things and the world just keeps moving along. Yet they are all nitwits.

And our economists can't talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles that has been obvious for decades. Americans have lost how many trillions on the depreciation of that junk?

I would love to further discuss that issue but I do not think that this is the proper topic or forum.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I don't understand your reasoning here. It seems to me that you think steel is infinitely malleable or something.

And how did you come to that conclusion? How does the shape of the truss make any difference to the columns they were attached to? I don't understand your reasoning with this.

So you're saying the sagging trusses when they stopped sagging started putting a pulling force on the columns?

Where is that force coming from? Did all the many trusses all sag at the same time and all exerted the same pulling force, on many floors? How many failed trusses would it take to cause a floor to collapse? Can a failing floor cause the floors bellow to collapse? How many trusses does it take to change a light bulb?

It's inconclusive. And indeed your conclusion is not supported by other photographic evidence.

That is just your opinion. If you can not see the outer walls I have circled in red then you need new glasses.
What other pics, you mean these...



Do you see that wall? Is it on top, or underneath the rubble pile?

How about this wall?....



If you can admit to seeing them, can you explain how that can happen from a natural uncontrolled collapse?
Without copping out and saying it's inconclusive which is nonsense.

Why? Who says you can't implode a building of that height?

Think about it! Implosion demolitions work by dropping the center of the building to cause the outer walls to fall inwards. You can't do that if the building is tall and skinny, the outer walls would have no room to fall into the footprint. WTC 7 was the tallest building to ever be imploded. It's common knowledge that tall skinny buildings can not be implosion demolished, but you obvioulsy can not except anything that puts the OS in question.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Are you really admitting that reading is simply idiotic busywork?

Reading 10,000 pages of mostly stupid trash is idiotic busy work.

I have been telling people since 2006 that the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Not one person has come back with a specification for the amount and said where it is in the report.

You are of course free to try. HAVE FUN!

If airliners could destroy those buildings in less than TWO HOURS it should be explainable in fewer than 300 pages and the data should include the distributions of steel and concrete in the buildings.

The NCSTAR1 is mostly complicated but unimportant BS. A snow job! The information about the deflection and oscillation of the south tower is very significant however. The building deflects FIFTEEN INCHES at the impact of the plane, but 50 minutes after the oscillation stops the entire upper 29 stories break loose and tilts/rotates such that the bottom portion moves horizontally 20 feet in a couple of seconds. Where did the energy to do that come from?

And then physicists spend almost TEN YEARS not asking for details about what should be one of the most fascinating phenomenon in history.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Reading 10,000 pages of mostly stupid trash is idiotic busy work.

Wow. Declared it stupid trash and then admit in the same sentence that you never read it. Amazing.

I have been telling people since 2006 that the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Not one person has come back with a specification for the amount and said where it is in the report.

"NCSTAR 1-1A, Design Criteria, floor loadings".

You are of course free to try. HAVE FUN!

Took about 5 seconds of reading.

If airliners could destroy those buildings in less than TWO HOURS it should be explainable in fewer than 300 pages and the data should include the distributions of steel and concrete in the buildings.

Says who? If it took three hours would you need 50 more pages or 100 more pages?

The NCSTAR1 is mostly complicated but unimportant BS. A snow job!

HOW, IN THE NAME OF GOD, WOULD YOU KNOW - YOU NEVER READ IT!!

The information about the deflection and oscillation of the south tower is very significant however. The building deflects FIFTEEN INCHES at the impact of the plane, but 50 minutes after the oscillation stops the entire upper 29 stories break loose and tilts/rotates such that the bottom portion moves horizontally 20 feet in a couple of seconds. Where did the energy to do that come from?

What are you talking about? The plane hit the building. You do realize that the plane impact, explosive force of the jet fuel and the subsequent fires did have some effect on the building structure, don't you?

And then physicists spend almost TEN YEARS not asking for details about what should be one of the most fascinating phenomenon in history.

Because they, unlike you, do have a clue about how physics actually works.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Billmeister
You are opening up a huge can of worms here, the actual premise of your OP delves into the importance of FAITH in opinion making...

the Billmeister

Of course one can never really be 100 per cent certain of anything. The existence of Korea, for example, could be a gigantic hoax. But if you have a balanced and nuanced approach it's often pretty simple to assess which sources are worthwhile and which are not.

Generally the ones used by the Truth Movement fall into the latter category.

What are you talking about? The truth movement had access to the same NIST report as the deniers. So now you are saying the NIST report probably doesnt exist?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The NCSTAR1 is mostly complicated but unimportant BS. A snow job!

HOW, IN THE NAME OF GOD, WOULD YOU KNOW - YOU NEVER READ IT!!

The information about the deflection and oscillation of the south tower is very significant however. The building deflects FIFTEEN INCHES at the impact of the plane, but 50 minutes after the oscillation stops the entire upper 29 stories break loose and tilts/rotates such that the bottom portion moves horizontally 20 feet in a couple of seconds. Where did the energy to do that come from?

What are you talking about? The plane hit the building. You do realize that the plane impact, explosive force of the jet fuel and the subsequent fires did have some effect on the building structure, don't you?

One of the funny things about searching the NIST was seeing how much of it was redundant. The exact same paragraph was showing up in half a dozen different places.

If you think the report is so great than tell us the total for the concrete and where it is in the report.

The conservation of momentum involved in stopping the plane is what caused the south tower to deflect 15 inches. I bet the fuel explosion did not do anything but heat some surfaces of the steel temporarily. The explosion was IMPRESSIVE and no doubt killed a number of people and started fires but it hardly did anything to the structural steel.

I said I didn't read 10,000 pages. I read what I found interesting that my searches turned up. I know they didn't provide distribution of steel data. Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

One of the funny things about searching the NIST was seeing how much of it was redundant. The exact same paragraph was showing up in half a dozen different places.

Exactly which paragraph is that so I can check you assertion.

If you think the report is so great than tell us the total for the concrete and where it is in the report.

Design Loads.

The conservation of momentum involved in stopping the plane is what caused the south tower to deflect 15 inches. I bet the fuel explosion did not do anything but heat some surfaces of the steel temporarily. The explosion was IMPRESSIVE and no doubt killed a number of people and started fires but it hardly did anything to the structural steel.

You bet? What kind of physics is that? You don't think the explosive forces of a couple of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could damage steel structures? You don't think any of those floor trusses suffered any damage? What kind of damage was done when all of a sudden the dead load of the floors was increased by the weight of one commercial jet liner? Think that had no effect on the loading charateristics of the building?

I said I didn't read 10,000 pages. I read what I found interesting that my searches turned up. I know they didn't provide distribution of steel data.

Uh, they described in detail the all the steel structures and their positions and functions in the building.

Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?

Nope, not how it works. Sorry. No building holds itself up unless you are thinking of imaginary floating castles in the sky. All buildings transfer their loads to the earth. That's what holds them "up". And the strength of their connections holds them together.