Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

reply to post by psikeyhackr


There also haven't been a scale model of the titanic in almost 100 years. The scientific community should be ashamed. Science is one big joke.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

There also haven't been a scale model of the titanic in almost 100 years. The scientific community should be ashamed. Science is one big joke.

My my, are we getting brilliant. How many ships sank before the Titanic?

When did an entire steel frame skyscraper collapse straight down before 9/11?

Ever heard of scientific curiosity? I guess it died on 9/11.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

My my, are we getting brilliant. How many ships sank before the Titanic?

When did an entire steel frame skyscraper collapse straight down before 9/11?

Ever heard of scientific curiosity? I guess it died on 9/11.

You know the NIST put out an extensive report about the collapse of the buildings. You should look it up and give it a read sometime. Might help you understand the event a little more.

By the way, models are for children.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The core didn't have just empty space. Some material had to be there to provide the strength to hold up the floors. This pancaking bulldh# has to pretend the core is irrelevant. So why hasn't any engineering school been able to build a model that can collapse? What engineering school has even claimed to try?

Haven't even tried in TEN YEARS. Great Science!!!

psik

Ah yes, so you're completely ignoring, AGAIN, that the majority of the collapse was NOT taking place inside the core?

What the hell is so difficult to comprehend here? Am I speaking to a monkey right now? The trusses and horizontal connections were the mainly impacted thing here. They do not resist vertical loads unless they are within a very small weight limit, and each truss had its own distributed among the thin layer of concrete.

Now, try and tell me ONE MORE TIME that it was the vertical core supports doing all the resisting of the collapse. JUST TRY.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

There also haven't been a scale model of the titanic in almost 100 years. The scientific community should be ashamed. Science is one big joke.

My my, are we getting brilliant. How many ships sank before the Titanic?

When did an entire steel frame skyscraper collapse straight down before 9/11?

Ever heard of scientific curiosity? I guess it died on 9/11.

psik

Or maybe it could be that only a handful of truthers are "curious", because they are clueless about the physics, and actual scientists and engineers have a very good understanding of how those buildings collapsed. But that would require for you to acknowledge that you are indeed clueless. Not going to happen, so you choose to believe there is a world wide conspiracy among scientists. Far more likely

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

My my, are we getting brilliant. How many ships sank before the Titanic?

When did an entire steel frame skyscraper collapse straight down before 9/11?

Ever heard of scientific curiosity? I guess it died on 9/11.

You know the NIST put out an extensive report about the collapse of the buildings. You should look it up and give it a read sometime. Might help you understand the event a little more.

By the way, models are for children.

You mean the NCSTAR1 report that does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So tell me. How did the floors manage to focus all their weight perfectly on the vertical columns? This is the primary focus of your hypothesis about the impossibility of collapse, so your answer here will determine if your hypothesis is full of crap or not.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The core didn't have just empty space. Some material had to be there to provide the strength to hold up the floors. This pancaking bulldh# has to pretend the core is irrelevant.
psik

Ahem, how many times does it have to be repeated to you before it sinks in? The core only had floor truss seats welded on to hold up the floors. THAT'S IT! No massive I-beams from the interior columns to the exterior. Just a truss seat welded on like a tab onto which the top chord of the truss was bolted on. When floors pancaked down during collapse, this is what failed and the majority of the core remained standing (but as we see, some did collapse from the top section impacting it.) The core is pretty much irrelevant walking about the floor assemblies coming down and shearing the floor truss ends. But I want you to tell us what exactly in the core should have stopped the floors from falling down.

Read through this article regarding the truss seats:

www.aws.org...

Please, tell me, tell us all, just how were those floor connections suppose to withstand a vertical dynamic force impacting it with 15+ floors.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The core didn't have just empty space. Some material had to be there to provide the strength to hold up the floors. This pancaking bulldh# has to pretend the core is irrelevant.
psik

Ahem, how many times does it have to be repeated to you before it sinks in? The core only had floor truss seats welded on to hold up the floors. THAT'S IT! No massive I-beams from the interior columns to the exterior. Just a truss seat welded on like a tab onto which the top chord of the truss was bolted on. When floors pancaked down during collapse, this is what failed and the majority of the core remained standing (but as we see, some did collapse from the top section impacting it.) The core is pretty much irrelevant walking about the floor assemblies coming down and shearing the floor truss ends. But I want you to tell us what exactly in the core should have stopped the floors from falling down.

Read through this article regarding the truss seats:

www.aws.org...

Please, tell me, tell us all, just how were those floor connections suppose to withstand a vertical dynamic force impacting it with 15+ floors.

I never said the truss seats were supposed to withstand anything. You explain why the core came down. You explain why so many horizontal beams were missing from the remains of the spire when we finally see it. My point is that the core coming down on the core could not do all of that therefore something else must have.

The fact that no one can build a self supporting structure where the top 15% can destroy the rest is the proof. So let's see someone build such a structure that can completely collapse. Otherwise all you have is TALK. You can't even supply accurate distribution of mass data on the towers but everybody is supposed to believe airliners and fire caused what we see in those videos.

I don't buy it.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

You mean the NCSTAR1 report that does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers?

Yes, that's the one! Have you given it a good read through yet? Its been out for about 5 years now.
As for your trivia questions - its a science and engineering report, not a travel brochure.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I never said the truss seats were supposed to withstand anything. You explain why the core came down. You explain why so many horizontal beams were missing from the remains of the spire when we finally see it. My point is that the core coming down on the core could not do all of that therefore something else must have.

Its been explained. The core was not meant to stand up alone without the exterior columns or floors. The horizontal beams were ripped off during the collapse. It wasnt "just the core" coming down on it. You also had a section of the building crashing down through it all too.

The fact that no one can build a self supporting structure where the top 15% can destroy the rest is the proof. So let's see someone build such a structure that can completely collapse. Otherwise all you have is TALK. You can't even supply accurate distribution of mass data on the towers but everybody is supposed to believe airliners and fire caused what we see in those videos.

I don't buy it.

psik

Well maybe if you can redo your model into a closer semblance of the WTC, then maybe you would have a valid point. Again, the WTC was not like the Empire State Building, or Sears Tower, or the Chrysler Building. The design is the key and the fault, its just that not too many people want to admit that.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I never said the truss seats were supposed to withstand anything. You explain why the core came down. You explain why so many horizontal beams were missing from the remains of the spire when we finally see it. My point is that the core coming down on the core could not do all of that therefore something else must have.

Its been explained. The core was not meant to stand up alone without the exterior columns or floors. The horizontal beams were ripped off during the collapse. It wasnt "just the core" coming down on it. You also had a section of the building crashing down through it all too.

The fact that no one can build a self supporting structure where the top 15% can destroy the rest is the proof. So let's see someone build such a structure that can completely collapse. Otherwise all you have is TALK. You can't even supply accurate distribution of mass data on the towers but everybody is supposed to believe airliners and fire caused what we see in those videos.

I don't buy it.

psik

Well maybe if you can redo your model into a closer semblance of the WTC, then maybe you would have a valid point. Again, the WTC was not like the Empire State Building, or Sears Tower, or the Chrysler Building. The design is the key and the fault, its just that not too many people want to admit that.

ROFL

You collapse believers are just trying to use the tube-in-tube structure as an excuse to prop up your beliefs. An accurate tube-in-tube model cannot be made if the strength of the floor connections relative to the weight of the floors is not known. It also cannot be done if the distribution of mass down the building is not known. It is the weight of steel in the core and the perimeter columns that increased down the buildings. The truss connections WERE THE SAME down the buildings.

So you demand a model that you don't want the necessary information to design. So you put yourself in what you think is a win-win debating situation but it really just makes you look really dumb to anyone that really thinks about it. Debating 300 year old Newtonian physics is really idiotic. This should have been resolved in 2002.

You make a claim and then say you are right because you don't want the information that might PROVE you are wrong. So you must claim my model is not valid though grade school kids should have not trouble understanding it.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You mean the NCSTAR1 report that does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers?

Yes, that's the one! Have you given it a good read through yet? Its been out for about 5 years now.
As for your trivia questions - its a science and engineering report, not a travel brochure.

I already told you I downloaded it and burned it to DVD years ago. I doubt that I have read a total of more than 400 pages. I think anyone that reads the whole thing is STUPID. The great thing about electronic documents is searchability. The NIST was to dumb to specify the total amount of concrete in their 10,000 PAGES.

Brilliant SCIENCE!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You really don't like to answer my tough questions. For example, you never said whether you watched that 18 minute construction video on abc.

Here it is again:
www.pbs.org...

And here's my other question again:

How did the floors manage to focus all their weight perfectly on the vertical columns? This is the primary focus of your hypothesis about the impossibility of collapse, so your answer here will determine if your hypothesis is full of crap or not.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You really don't like to answer my tough questions. For example, you never said whether you watched that 18 minute construction video on abc.

Here it is again:
www.pbs.org...

And here's my other question again:

How did the floors manage to focus all their weight perfectly on the vertical columns? This is the primary focus of your hypothesis about the impossibility of collapse, so your answer here will determine if your hypothesis is full of crap or not.

ROFL

Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.

Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?

That is the Port Authority video. I watched it over a year ago, probably two years. What about it. They say most of the weight was on the perimeter walls but the NCSTAR1 report says 53% was on the core.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL

Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.

Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?

Ok, thank you for finally answering me.

Now, look at what you just said. You said "I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone." Think about this for a short moment, wouldn't you? You are saying that there is a space as the core "comes down" on itself as if it was somehow separated and impacting perfectly (this is where I get that word) on each of the vertical columns.

Now, any rationally thinking person would say "wait... wouldn't the vertical columns have mostly buckled upon collapse?" Why yes, rationally thinking person! This means that at initiation of collapse, the floor will fall, but mainly the trusses will hit each other. We know that there is no dynamic vertical resistance present in the truss systems, so the subsequent floor fails, and the connections that didn't quite fail are pushed and pulled downward by the weight of the intact connections above, and the falling connections below.

Think about it, please, for just a moment. I know you have a brain psikey, and I know you use it, but please, just think about this.

Your situation acts as if the columns are crushing down on each column below as if you were taking a block and dropping it on a block below. The towers were not blocks. Just think about it, ok?


Edit: For clarification's purposes, I was saying that the core columns were being pushed and pulled by the weight. Watch the videos and think about what's going on with the building inside. It starts to make sense fairly quickly when the truss systems are the first things impacting and failing during collapse. The failure of the core in a localized area was probably the initiator, but the failure of the trusses and such were what really collapsed the building. No explosives required.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL

Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.

Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?

Ok, thank you for finally answering me.

So you mean that all you do is misinterpret what people say.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL

Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.

Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?

Ok, thank you for finally answering me.

So you mean that all you do is misinterpret what people say.

psik

I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my actual post.

Edit: I mean, come on, man. You're being really immature.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL

Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.

Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?

Ok, thank you for finally answering me.

Now, look at what you just said. You said "I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone." Think about this for a short moment, wouldn't you? You are saying that there is a space as the core "comes down" on itself as if it was somehow separated and impacting perfectly (this is where I get that word) on each of the vertical columns.

Where did I say anything about IMPACTING PERFECTLY? That is YOUR ASSUMPTION.

The only way for the falling core to miss the lower stationary core would be to move horizontally 80 feet. Since that obviously did not happen then the core came down on the core. You are introducing this PERFECTION crap to give yourself a debating point.

PSIK

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I already told you I downloaded it and burned it to DVD years ago.

Which, I guess, is the equivalent in your world to reading it?

I doubt that I have read a total of more than 400 pages.

Wow. And you openly admit that. And then come out here and claim to tell everyone what is and what is not in the report. Amazing.

I think anyone that reads the whole thing is STUPID.

Well, I think anyone who claims information is missing from the report and openly admits that they never actually read the report isn't very bright either.

The great thing about electronic documents is searchability.

Just remember with your "searches" - garbage in, garbage out. Those searches don't find what you are looking for, only what you are asking for.

The NIST was to dumb to specify the total amount of concrete in their 10,000 PAGES.

You'll never know for sure - what a pity.

Brilliant SCIENCE!

You know what they say about people in glass houses.