What is a 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorist"?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So for that information to not be demanded by everyone is ridiculous. It is the ridiculousness of the Official Story that breeds all of the other scenarios. A magical collapse with no supports takes 12 seconds in a computer simulation and that is without really accurate distribution of mass data. So the airliner/fire explanation should have been shot down by our engineering schools within a matter of months.

So what are you saying, that all our engineering schools and students are "all in on the coverup" because they're not agreeing with what you're seeing?

You keep focusing attention on PEOPLE and what is going on in PEOPLE'S HEADS.

Are you saying you don't have the BRAINS to think about simple physics for yourself? Physics is not about social behavior. Are you saying that you cannot comprehend that every level of the WTC had to be strong enough to support the weight of all of the levels above?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So after TEN YEARS the fact that the "science geeks" did not resolve this simple issue may be more important than what happened on 9/11 itself. The "scientists" have revealed themselves to be full of # and totally lacking in integrity.

After ten years you have failed gloriously in your attempts to prove that any of this information (total this and total that) is the least bit relevant in understanding why the WTC towers collapsed. Engineering schools all over this country should be studying your online posts which prove that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You keep focusing attention on PEOPLE and what is going on in PEOPLE'S HEADS.

Are you saying you don't have the BRAINS to think about simple physics for yourself? Physics is not about social behavior. Are you saying that you cannot comprehend that every level of the WTC had to be strong enough to support the weight of all of the levels above?

psik

Not true. Every level of the WTC was held in air by horizontal braces running from the interior core to the exterior columns, and no part of this brace was connected to the levels either above or below them. Every level therefore had the exact same load bearing capacity as every other level, so if something came along that was able to knock down one level, physics dictate it would have the ability to knock down every other level below it.

I know this has been pointed out to you previously and I know you've seen this. It would be one thing if you didn't know, but it's obious that you do know and you simply don't care. This means you are LYING, regardless of whatever other fancy word it is that you ant to use to describe your efforts.


...and you didn't answer the question that YOU brought up- why aren't any engineering schools or students seeing what you';re seeing? Either they're all incredibly stupid, they're all actively assisting in covering up the conspiracy, or you're seeing things that aren't true. Which is it?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You keep focusing attention on PEOPLE and what is going on in PEOPLE'S HEADS.

Are you saying you don't have the BRAINS to think about simple physics for yourself? Physics is not about social behavior. Are you saying that you cannot comprehend that every level of the WTC had to be strong enough to support the weight of all of the levels above?

psik

Not true. Every level of the WTC was held in air by horizontal braces running from the interior core to the exterior columns, and no part of this brace was connected to the levels either above or below them. Every level therefore had the exact same load bearing capacity as every other level, so if something came along that was able to knock down one level, physics dictate it would have the ability to knock down every other level below it.

I said LEVEL not FLOOR. You are talking about the FLOORS.

The columns in the core were part of each LEVEL. The columns had to be held up all of the way up the building for the FLOORS to be attached to them.

The weight of the 12 foot lengths of column in the core and the horizontal beams in the core at each LEVEL were part of the weight at that LEVEL. That is why I make a point of distinguishing LEVELS and FLOORS. People are deliberately playing word games to cause confusion.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I said LEVEL not FLOOR. You are talking about the FLOORS.

The columns in the core were part of each LEVEL. The columns had to be held up all of the way up the building for the FLOORS to be attached to them.

The weight of the 12 foot lengths of column in the core and the horizontal beams in the core at each LEVEL were part of the weight at that LEVEL. That is why I make a point of distinguishing LEVELS and FLOORS. People are deliberately playing word games to cause confusion

Boy, all that and you still haven't told us the difference between a floor and a level. The columns in the core were also part of each floor and level and the structure that comprised the floor on each level also comprised the ceiling on each floor, which were all connected to the columns in the core in each level, er, uh floor.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I said LEVEL not FLOOR. You are talking about the FLOORS.

The columns in the core were part of each LEVEL. The columns had to be held up all of the way up the building for the FLOORS to be attached to them.

The weight of the 12 foot lengths of column in the core and the horizontal beams in the core at each LEVEL were part of the weight at that LEVEL. That is why I make a point of distinguishing LEVELS and FLOORS. People are deliberately playing word games to cause confusion.

psik

You're starting to paint yourself into a corner with this conspiracy bit. Yes, the floors WERE the levels, and no, the core columns were NOT part of the level. The horizontal braces were supported by the vertical columns. The vertical columns were NOT supported by the horizontal braces because the vertical columns were so large that they spanned several levels. Besides, do we really need to explain to you that "level" means "horizontal"?

The only thing you're doing is making up stuff off the top of your head as you go along. For one thing, where do you get this "12 foot lengths of core column" bit? Everything I've seen says they were 36 feet long, and spanned three levels.

WTC core column analysis

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I said LEVEL not FLOOR. You are talking about the FLOORS.

The columns in the core were part of each LEVEL. The columns had to be held up all of the way up the building for the FLOORS to be attached to them.

The weight of the 12 foot lengths of column in the core and the horizontal beams in the core at each LEVEL were part of the weight at that LEVEL. That is why I make a point of distinguishing LEVELS and FLOORS. People are deliberately playing word games to cause confusion.

psik

You're starting to paint yourself into a corner with this conspiracy bit. Yes, the floors WERE the levels, and no, the core columns were NOT part of the level. The horizontal braces were supported by the vertical columns. The vertical columns were NOT supported by the horizontal braces because the vertical columns were so large that they spanned several levels. Besides, do we really need to explain to you that "level" means "horizontal"?

The only thing you're doing is making up stuff off the top of your head as you go along. For one thing, where do you get this "12 foot lengths of core column" bit? Everything I've seen says they were 36 feet long, and spanned three levels.

WTC core column analysis

I explained what I meant by LEVEL long ago. You are deliberately maintaining confusion. By LEVEL I mean a 12 foot height of the building including the core and the perimeter columns and one complete FLOOR assembly. I never said the vertical columns were supported by the horizontal braces. The horizontal braces kept the columns from bending do to the axial forces applied to them. I also know that column sections were more than 12 feet long. But 12 feet of the column sections were on every given LEVEL so the weight of those 12 foot sections would be included in the weight of that LEVEL.

So as the columns got thicker down the buildings the weight of the LEVELS increased. That is why I talk about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each and every LEVEL.

So in any supposed gravitational collapse the core above had to come down on the core below and bend columns and hit horizontal beams. So how much energy did that take and why didn't it slow the collapse?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So how much energy did that take and why didn't it slow the collapse?

How do you know that it did not? We do not have perfect records of the collapse, some video in which the collapse is obscured by the large cloud of dust and some seismic records which are of limited value in that they are only recording collapse events that were of sufficient energy to be recorded. For all you know the collapse may have slowed from .109 seconds to .134 seconds per floor (level) or whatever. And don't ask for information. We have what we have, that is it.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So how much energy did that take and why didn't it slow the collapse?

How do you know that it did not? We do not have perfect records of the collapse, some video in which the collapse is obscured by the large cloud of dust and some seismic records which are of limited value in that they are only recording collapse events that were of sufficient energy to be recorded. For all you know the collapse may have slowed from .109 seconds to .134 seconds per floor (level) or whatever. And don't ask for information. We have what we have, that is it.

I don't give a damn about trivial differences. It is pretty much universally agreed that the buildings came down in less than 18 seconds. I use that number because it is double the free fall time from the top. A gravitational collapse using nothing but the conservation of momentum simulated via computer yields 12 seconds even without truly accurate mass distribution. So how could destroying supports not make it take a lot more than 18 seconds?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I said LEVEL not FLOOR. You are talking about the FLOORS.

The columns in the core were part of each LEVEL. The columns had to be held up all of the way up the building for the FLOORS to be attached to them.

The weight of the 12 foot lengths of column in the core and the horizontal beams in the core at each LEVEL were part of the weight at that LEVEL. That is why I make a point of distinguishing LEVELS and FLOORS. People are deliberately playing word games to cause confusion.

There isn't a single engineer who subscribes to your interpretation. Each "level" classifies the location of a floor and whatever columns happened to be on that level but structurally the columns were completely independent of the levels becuase they were some 36 feet long. You cannot separate the middle 12 feet out of the 36 foot beam and pretend it's an independent 12 foot beam simply for your own expediency.

In the context you're attempting to use in your argument, "Level" and "Floor" are the same thing. Otherwise each "level" would really be three floors.

I explained what I meant by LEVEL long ago. You are deliberately maintaining confusion. By LEVEL I mean a 12 foot height of the building including the core and the perimeter columns and one complete FLOOR assembly. I never said the vertical columns were supported by the horizontal braces. The horizontal braces kept the columns from bending do to the axial forces applied to them. I also know that column sections were more than 12 feet long. But 12 feet of the column sections were on every given LEVEL so the weight of those 12 foot sections would be included in the weight of that LEVEL.

Then you just threw your own claims into the trash. By your own admission, if the horizontal braces are knocked down, there would be nothing left to hold the vertical core columns upright anymore regardless of how long the columns were or how much they weighed.

How about answering the question already- why aren't any of those engineering schools ratifying what you're seeing? Your insistance on evading such a simple question is illustrating what a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" is better than I could ever explain it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There isn't a single engineer who subscribes to your interpretation. Each "level" classifies the location of a floor and whatever columns happened to be on that level but structurally the columns were completely independent of the levels becuase they were some 36 feet long. You cannot separate the middle 12 feet out of the 36 foot beam and pretend it's an independent 12 foot beam simply for your own expediency.

So you just haven't encountered an engineer that expresses it semantically the way I do.

The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about semantics. But semantics can be misused to keep people confused.

So a continuous physical length of vertical columns was 36 feet long. Parts of that column had to be on 3 or 4 LEVELS of the tower. There is nothing complicated about that. So 1/3rd of the weight of the column would be on a level that the column went through. If the columns section started exactly even with the surface of the floor then a 1/3rd of it would be on 3 consecutive LEVELS. If it was not even with the surface of a floor then two of the thirds would be on consecutive LEVELS and the two ends which would each be less than 1/3rd of the column and extend into upper and lower LEVELS with those two consecutive ones in between. There is nothing complicated about this you are just being obtuse.

And lots of engineers just make their area of expertise appear more complicated than it is.

There was a FLOOR assembly outside the core but there were FLOOR slabs in the core also for people to walk to the elevators. So people were not changing LEVELS by just walking from one FLOOR slab to another. Since the thickness of the columns increased down the buildings the TONS of STEEL progressively increased by the cross sectional area of the columns times 12 feet for the height of the LEVEL times the density of steel which is 490 pounds per cubic foot.

I never said anything about independent 12 foot beams. You are just distorting my use of the word section.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
...We are about to reach the TEN YEARS of incompetent physics mark...The "scientists" have revealed themselves to be full of # and totally lacking in integrity.
psik

Or possibly you could be wrong about your interpretation of physics and engineering. Don't forget that possibility. A true scientist explores alternative explanations.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
...We are about to reach the TEN YEARS of incompetent physics mark...The "scientists" have revealed themselves to be full of # and totally lacking in integrity.
psik

Or possibly you could be wrong about your interpretation of physics and engineering. Don't forget that possibility. A true scientist explores alternative explanations.

You think it is possible that I am wrong that skyscrapers need to hold themselves up? You think I could be wrong that more weight needs to be supported the further down a skyscraper you go? You think it is possible that I am wrong that skyscraper designers must figure out how to distribute the steel so skyscrapers can hold themselves up?

So regardless of what destroyed the buildings do you think it is OK for us to not be given accurate data on the distribution of steel?

Just because Newtonian Physics dictates what cannot happen on the basis of specific inputs does not necessarily mean it can tell you what the UNKNOWN INPUTS were. I don't have dust from the WTC or the equipment to test it. So I can't verify any of what is said about thermite, nano or otherwise. So I am not trying to explain what I can only take other people's word for. But there are plenty of things about what happened to the two towers to indicate there were other sources of energy besides airliners, fires and gravity. But in fact without knowing how much steel and concrete was at what heights the Potential Energy cannot even be computed.

So why shouldn't the SCIENTISTS discuss things so simple?

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

So are the so called scientists just pretending that 300 year old Newtonian Physics is more difficult to understand than it really is?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So regardless of what destroyed the buildings do you think it is OK for us to not be given accurate data on the distribution of steel?

I'm curious. What would you do with accurate data if you had it?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But in fact without knowing how much steel and concrete was at what heights the Potential Energy cannot even be computed.

Yet you've said conclusively and without a doubt that the airplane impact, explosions and fires could not caused the collapse. How so? Either you had enough information to draw your conclusions and therefore your petition for additional information is simply argumentative or you did not have sufficient information to draw your conclusions and you are lying.

So which is it?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But in fact without knowing how much steel and concrete was at what heights the Potential Energy cannot even be computed.

Yet you've said conclusively and without a doubt that the airplane impact, explosions and fires could not caused the collapse. How so? Either you had enough information to draw your conclusions and therefore your petition for additional information is simply argumentative or you did not have sufficient information to draw your conclusions and you are lying.

So which is it?

Conclusive for whom?

Just because it is conclusive for ME does not mean it is conclusive for EVERYBODY.

There is only ONE WAY TO THINK. And that is to THINK FOR YOURSELF. I considered it to be obvious that the distributions of steel and concrete had to be important within two weeks of the event. But the NCSTAR1 report released in 2005 does not even specify the total tons of concrete much less the distribution. We don't have accurate data on the tons of steel on every level withing 5 stories of the impact points. Whose fault is it that we don't have that information? But the fact that the buildings could hold themselves up and withstand the wind conveys the necessary information, just not the details.

It is not my fault that you cannot figure out the obvious and draw the obvious conclusion. We do know the buildings were more than 2000 times the masses of the planes and that they held themselves up for 28 years. So some people will need to be laughed at for not figuring out the obvious in TEN YEARS. They care more about psychological bullsh# and what other people think then making rational decisions for themselves.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

Its 42 years after the Moon landing and apparently most people can't figure out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for decades and that redesigning cars is nothing but stupid marketing bullsh# resulting in pouring money down a rathole. That is more important than 9/11. The economics profession does not tell the entire world how much is lost on the depreciation of crapmobiles every year. It has to be $300,000,000,000 every year for just the United States. What is that compared to the cost of the twin towers?

www.spectacle.org...

How dare I think I am more intelligent than you are and not think what I am told.

Who do I think I am?

psik

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So regardless of what destroyed the buildings do you think it is OK for us to not be given accurate data on the distribution of steel?

I'm curious. What would you do with accurate data if you had it?

I already provided a link to a Python program showing that the conservation of momentum alone caused the collapse to take about 12 seconds without supports for 109 identical masses. So putting in accurate data for the distribution of mass down the building should obviously slow it down even more.

So our engineering schools can't produce programs that simple?

psik

Do you think any buildings in the world are designed to hold up the dynamic mass of their upper floors?

Can you cite an example?

Hello everyone.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Don't forget that possibility. A true scientist explores alternative explanations.

Unless the scientist is investigating 911 and that alternative explanation excludes the use of planes. Oh no, that's taboo.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Conclusive for whom?
Just because it is conclusive for ME does not mean it is conclusive for EVERYBODY.

So "conclusive" is in the eye of the beholder? What about all that stuff that physics doesn't care about semantics, etc? Just BS so you don't have to explain yourself?

There is only ONE WAY TO THINK. And that is to THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Well, then if everyone thinks for themselves than that means there are about 6 billion ways to think.

I considered it to be obvious that the distributions of steel and concrete had to be important within two weeks of the event.

But you could be wrong, correct?

But the NCSTAR1 report released in 2005 does not even specify the total tons of concrete much less the distribution.

Well, it is but you don't want to spent your precious time actually reading the report. What a pity.

We don't have accurate data on the tons of steel on every level withing 5 stories of the impact points.

Yeah, we do.

Whose fault is it that we don't have that information?

Well the only person you have to blame at this point is yourself.

But the fact that the buildings could hold themselves up and withstand the wind conveys the necessary information, just not the details.

What information would that be, that a standing building is impervious to damage and will stand forever?

It is not my fault that you cannot figure out the obvious and draw the obvious conclusion.

You mean your conclusion? That you came to without the information that you insist is vital to reaching a conclusion?

We do know the buildings were more than 2000 times the masses of the planes and that they held themselves up for 28 years.

The fact that you think those observations are relevant to 9/11 is proof that your understanding of physics is slightly, shall we say, flawed.