What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So you are saying that gravity is not an accelerating vector? What kind of physics is that.

I am sure you at least suspect that it is quite unlikely that I have access to a centrifuge that could do the experiment. But if you know as much physics as you pretend then it is obvious that a centrifuge would increase the effective weight of my washers and therefore the compressive force on the paper loops, meaning they would have to be stronger to hold the static load.

Ugh fine psikey. If you put your model into a centrifuge that had a carriage that could tilt appropriately to ensure the relative horizontal acceleration vector was 0, then perhaps you could scale gravity for your tests.

Good luck with that.

reply to post by exponent


well two things...you did not honestly watch the vid now did you?

also you did not get my word on compartmentalizations either....?

but yes there surely will be more to discuss.

Originally posted by exponent
Hold on, you are now saying that when I don't have the qualifications or authority to know something for certain, I shouldn't listen to recognised experts who do have the qualifications, authority and peer reviewed mathematics to back it up?

I'm saying you should choose who you believe very carefully, because obvioulsy you don't have the quals, as you admitted, to know if Bazant is right or not. That is called taking it on faith that the authority you appeal to is correct.

You are not listening to recognized experts, plural, you are listening to Bazant, and it's easily demonstrated that Bazants paper is garbage, as we have done.

I'm sure a pithy Sherlock Holmes quote could work here, but as the hypothesis isn't impossible, then I have no problems whatsoever in accepting it. There are no viable alternatives.

Again no alternatives? Only in your mind mate, are we not offering an alternative? One that actually takes into account Newtonian Physics? But as you admit you don't have the quals to know, do you?

Sherlock Holmes was not a physicist.

You all hand wave away Newtonian Physics, and fail to understand that classical mechanics is based on Newtonian Physics. It's the first thing you learn in physics class, at least when I was taking mechanical engineering it was.

8.01 is a first-semester freshman physics class in Newtonian Mechanics...

ocw.mit.edu...

A totally different building with a totally different structure not exhibiting the same behaviour? What exactly is it supposed to convince me of?

Yes it is a completely different structure, that was the point. It is a much weaker structure that had load bearing columns removed, the floors sagged from the weight (not heat), it didn't pull in columns. A steel framed building would not even flinch, especially if no load bearing columns were removed, or extra weight added that is was not designed to hold. Heated trusses do not act like rigid concrete, and any extra force would be taken up by the sagging.

You do understand that steel framed structure are much more robust than concrete right? Steel has a much higher weight to strength ratio than concrete. In other words steel will hold much more weight than it's own weight compared to concrete.

I think a simple FEA would be fine. Set up some columns and trusses, heat trusses, instrument for tension and forces against the column.

OK have at it. I already showed you a demonstration that failed to exhibit the phenomena you claim. Obviously you're not going to do this and are just talking.

Originally posted by plube
well two things...you did not honestly watch the vid now did you?

Not sure what makes you think that?

also you did not get my word on compartmentalizations either....?

I can try and respond in one large prose section, but when I'm replying to 3 different people it tends to be easier just to quote each section of the reply.

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm saying you should choose who you believe very carefully, because obvioulsy you don't have the quals, as you admitted, to know if Bazant is right or not. That is called taking it on faith that the authority you appeal to is correct.

You are not listening to recognized experts, plural, you are listening to Bazant, and it's easily demonstrated that Bazants paper is garbage, as we have done.

Bazant's paper is peer reviewed, and is authored by a total of 5-6 researchers and cited by many more. Claiming it's just a single person is silly, especially as I quoted Newtons Bit for truss sagging beforehand.

Again no alternatives? Only in your mind mate, are we not offering an alternative? One that actually takes into account Newtonian Physics? But as you admit you don't have the quals to know, do you?

What alternative are you offering? Before now the only excuse I've seen you use is 'it was the cladding bowing' which has been repeatedly demonstrated to not be geometrically possible.

You all hand wave away Newtonian Physics, and fail to understand that classical mechanics is based on Newtonian Physics. It's the first thing you learn in physics class, at least when I was taking mechanical engineering it was.

I handwaved nothing, you literally just ignored where I explained the position as clearly as possible. Please go back and read my replies.

Yes it is a completely different structure, that was the point. It is a much weaker structure that had load bearing columns removed, the floors sagged from the weight (not heat), it didn't pull in columns. A steel framed building would not even flinch, especially if no load bearing columns were removed, or extra weight added that is was not designed to hold. Heated trusses do not act like rigid concrete, and any extra force would be taken up by the sagging.

How does sagging take up force? Please give me a detailed answer.

You do understand that steel framed structure are much more robust than concrete right? Steel has a much higher weight to strength ratio than concrete. In other words steel will hold much more weight than it's own weight compared to concrete.

I already went through this in this very thread. This is true, but concrete exceeds steel in many ways too. In the WTC, weight was a dominant factor.

OK have at it. I already showed you a demonstration that failed to exhibit the phenomena you claim. Obviously you're not going to do this and are just talking.

You showed a demonstration of a completely different construction of building and floor, with no similar conditions. Here is a university paper from the UK on truss sagging: www.sciencedirect.com...

It confirms that there are pull-in and push-out forces with a composite steel truss and concrete deck system matching the construction in the towers. It uses FEA as you agreed to and is from a reputable source in a reputable journal.

reply to post by exponent


sorry yet again i have to jump in on this peer review stuff....i showed you Crockett Grabbe....and i showed he is an expert...and i showed he is peer reviewed....he is a professional...well respected...and i will venture this....as he moves further in his career i am sure he will have even more kudos than Bazant....you ask us to accept Bazant but when another...highly respected individual discounts Bazant as rubbish...then how can you possibly choose who is correct without some knowledge on a given subject yourself.

reply to post by plube


Oh it's not that I have no knowledge, and I can read through the equations Bazant used just fine. If you want me to prove them though, that's a little bit above my station.

Can you show me something Crockett Gabe has published in a journal that criticises Bazant? I'd be very open to reading something like that, as all I tend to see are weak attacks or "14 points of agreement" which was quite hilarious.

Originally posted by exponent
Oh it's not that I have no knowledge, and I can read through the equations Bazant used just fine. If you want me to prove them though, that's a little bit above my station.

If you can't prove them then why are you arguing them? That makes no sense mate. No different from people who claim there were no planes.

If you can't prove them you have no idea if they're correct. Simple physics is all that is needed to prove if trusses can pull in columns, demonstrate it.

Obviously you can't, and neither could Bazant or NIST. Otherwise they would have, and the NIST report would be fact, not a hypothesis.

Originally posted by ANOK
If you can't prove them then why are you arguing them? That makes no sense mate. No different from people who claim there were no planes.

I'll argue that 1+1=2 too. Can I prove that using symbolic logic? No I cannot. You also argue that pulling in columns is impossible. Can you prove that with the rigour Bazant did? No you cannot.

We all have our limits, that doesn't mean we're not entitled to argue our viewpoints.

If you can't prove them you have no idea if they're correct. Simple physics is all that is needed to prove if trusses can pull in columns, demonstrate it.

Obviously you can't, and neither could Bazant or NIST. Otherwise they would have, and the NIST report would be fact, not a hypothesis.

I just pointed you to a peer reviewed article using a technique you agreed to that shows just that. Please take the time to read it before saying I can't show you what I have just shown you.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So you are saying that gravity is not an accelerating vector? What kind of physics is that.

I am sure you at least suspect that it is quite unlikely that I have access to a centrifuge that could do the experiment. But if you know as much physics as you pretend then it is obvious that a centrifuge would increase the effective weight of my washers and therefore the compressive force on the paper loops, meaning they would have to be stronger to hold the static load.

Ugh fine psikey. If you put your model into a centrifuge that had a carriage that could tilt appropriately to ensure the relative horizontal acceleration vector was 0, then perhaps you could scale gravity for your tests.

Good luck with that.

Curious to have to force you to admit the obvious and then we both know it is highly unlikely I would get to use a centrifuge and I would not bother if I could. But it is possible to scale gravity it is just pointless in this case.

Like I said it should be obvious to anyone who actually understands physics that increasing the effective gravity would require increasing the strength of my loops so the effects would tend to cancel. But then you have to pretend that crushing supports would not slow the falling mass and my magical collapse simulation does not yield a minimum time for which you got a similar value.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Curious to have to force you to admit the obvious and then we both know it is highly unlikely I would get to use a centrifuge and I would not bother if I could. But it is possible to scale gravity it is just pointless in this case.

You could put it on a rocket and fire it upwards, there's plenty of options, but none of them are actually plausible. I prefer to talk about things that are actually possible than imagine ridiculous fantasy scenarios. No offence.

Like I said it should be obvious to anyone who actually understands physics that increasing the effective gravity would require increasing the strength of my loops so the effects would tend to cancel. But then you have to pretend that crushing supports would not slow the falling mass and my magical collapse simulation does not yield a minimum time for which you got a similar value.

You're just repeating yourself now and failing to address my points. For the sixth or so time: How can accelerating all of the mass of a building downwards result in a minimum timing?

Please answer.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


i am missing something here....why on earth would you need a centrifuge.....gravity acts on your smaller masses with the same force that it acted on the towers with.

i was just today reading an article on the Aizhai suspension bridge....WHY because it is what i do....it crosses a canyon between two tunnels...amazing....but the part that fits here is modeling....the bridge is 1.17 km long...but they constructed a 12m long bridge to test in a wind tunnel to check it's stability due to the forces of wind so they could realize the effects.....scaling works...but using a centrifuge will just go beyond the force of gravity acting on it.....so makes no sense.

Your model was fine....I would have gone for the brick method.....myself ....easier and you can ensure consistency....now if Exponent had watched the vid...he may have gained the understanding to the value of using models.....and he may even come to understand what is being said here.

i worked on a bridge in Vancouver ...it was a suspension bridge....and the modeling that it was subjected to before construction was very helpful in determining the flutter speed.

but in all these models and tests....not ever...not once...does the smaller upper section bring down the entire larger lower block....Engineers all know this.... now Exponent and many others grab onto the verniage A controlled demolition to show that it was not a controlled demolition to bring down the towers...i have to wonder about this....also they try to say it shows how gravity can bring down the structure...hmmm...i have to question this to....so in the verniage demolitions...is it 20% of the top of the structure plummeting through 80% of the lower structure....nope.....also they compare this to the towers again...yet....when this demolition occurs all the supports on the floor are weakened and then are removed all at once.....did the fires in three steel structures burn so well that all the columns support each said building collapsed at once......even if we forget WTC 7 for the moment.....In two steel buildings....interesting tactic.

I have no idea what brought the towers down...but was it the case of gravity acting alone.....Nope....not at all.

did fires weaken the structures...yes

Did planes weaken the structure ...yes

but all this was localized to floors where the impacts and fires occurred...now as i said before Maths are used to explain the physics....kinda like dropping a ball....Newton knew what was happening....there was a force acting on the apple....he saw...puzzled over it....contemplated it...the physics were always there....the maths came later....

Now exponent...i posted Grabbes interview...i posted his papers ...and it shows to me you never bothered to look into it...so why on this gods green earth would i bother to post them again.

I know you are not going to look without bias....but i went and even though i have read...reread...and have read again...All of Bazants work on 911...and even some of his other works...because to be fair...he is a smart man....but it does not mean that he is bullet proof.

I have written to him...and i just emailed him again to confirm what he was meaning exactly on his k-out because you see...i want it in his words...not yours...because when i read his work...and i do actually believe i am a little better qualified than you to understand it......I want to confirm what i believe his k-out to mean....and i assure you....when he gets back(if he does) it will show that k-out is the debris being expelled at the crushing front.....not all the mass of the upper block.

reply to post by plube


They use verinage of concrete buildings as an example, yet dismiss any example we give if the building is not exactly like the WTC. Exponent did that with the vid I posted demonstrating catenary action.

Steel framed building cannot be collapsed using the verinage collapse method.

When they do it with concrete buildings, they are pre-weakened and it is 50% falling on 50%. This works with concrete buildings because of the low weight to strength ratio of concrete. You can drop concrete on concrete and it will deform, crush, but steel will not.

Again it just shows OS supporters don't know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

i am missing something here....why on earth would you need a centrifuge.....gravity acts on your smaller masses with the same force that it acted on the towers with.

Your model was fine....I would have gone for the brick method.....myself ....easier and you can ensure consistency....now if Exponent had watched the vid...he may have gained the understanding to the value of using models.....and he may even come to understand what is being said here.

i worked on a bridge in Vancouver ...it was a suspension bridge....and the modeling that it was subjected to before construction was very helpful in determining the flutter speed.

What do you mean by the "brick method"?

My brining up the centrifuge was just my response to supposedly not being able to scale gravity. I have encountered that EXCUSE for small models being invalid before. I was simply explaining, AGAIN, why scaling gravity would be useless even if it were done. So he responds talking about rockets.

The difference between the WTC analysis and the suspension bridge flutter analysis is the business of bending and breakage. For the WTC to collapse support components would have to be broken, bent and dislocated. And since Kinetic Energy would be lost slowing the collapse velocity thereby increasing the collapse time, the bridge flutter comparison is not a good case for the defence of small modeling since the material of the model is not being damaged and the square cube law doesn't need to be applied to the material of the real bridge.

The problem with 9/11 is I think plenty of people figured out long ago this could not happen as claimed but with TEN YEARS of silence about it how can it be resolved? Do some people want to admit that they have either been stupid or lying? Basically for the lie to be maintained a lot of people must be kept ignorant of simple physics and the subject must be made to look more difficult to comprehend than it is. Hence all of the fancy mathematics. While at the same time we have computers everywhere and the Empire State Building was designed without electronic computers. 9/11 is so obviously ridiculous looked at from so many angles.

So many sites which claim to discuss physics have banned the discussion of 9/11 and imply all of this "conspiracy theory" stuff is beneath them.

The trouble with that is, physics will never change or go away, and it needs to be taught generation after generation. So when is this BIG LIE going to blow up?

And how will many people react to realizing that the Physics Profession should have blown it up a long time ago?

psik

Originally posted by plube
Now exponent...i posted Grabbes interview...i posted his papers ...and it shows to me you never bothered to look into it...so why on this gods green earth would i bother to post them again.

I know you are not going to look without bias....but i went and even though i have read...reread...and have read again...All of Bazants work on 911...and even some of his other works...because to be fair...he is a smart man....but it does not mean that he is bullet proof.

I'm asking what he's published to a peer reviewed journal though. That's my problem. These papers typically appear in Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies or similar, where the review process can be described as 'light'. If his credentials and his results are accurate, then surely it's not too much to expect him to present a paper in a high volume journal?

I have written to him...and i just emailed him again to confirm what he was meaning exactly on his k-out because you see...i want it in his words...not yours...because when i read his work...and i do actually believe i am a little better qualified than you to understand it......I want to confirm what i believe his k-out to mean....and i assure you....when he gets back(if he does) it will show that k-out is the debris being expelled at the crushing front.....not all the mass of the upper block.

Why on earth would 'all the mass of the upper block' be expelled? Who is even theorising that? Why?!

Originally posted by ANOK
You can drop concrete on concrete and it will deform, crush, but steel will not.

What is this supposed to mean? Steel is not infallible, and concrete will almost always do very much better in compression. Of course you can drop steel on steel and get deformation and damage.

Have you read the paper I linked you to yet? How is it that they managed to get a handle on this 'impossible' pheonena?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ANOK
You can drop concrete on concrete and it will deform, crush, but steel will not.

What is this supposed to mean? Steel is not infallible, and concrete will almost always do very much better in compression. Of course you can drop steel on steel and get deformation and damage.

Have you read the paper I linked you to yet? How is it that they managed to get a handle on this 'impossible' pheonena?

Why were there no body parts? Just small fragments, and then only 1/10 of the people that supposedly died that day were identified?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If we don't know the mass of the balloon, does this mean it's impossible for the bowling ball to break the balloon? Or does it simply mean the bowling ball has the force to overcome the resistance of the balloon regardless of what mass of the balloon actually is?

Definitely appears to be leaning in the STUPID Direction.

Was that balloon tested to see that it would support the bowling ball under static conditions?

Why should that matter? You've said about a thousand times that "we need to know the mass of the concrete on the floors", presumably because unless we know this, it will be some type of violation of 300 year old Newtonian physics for the upper section to crush the lower section. My point is that it doesn't matter what the "mass of the concrete on the floors" is because regardless of what it is, the upper section was still enough to overcome their resistance. Pick whatever units of measurement you want and the answer is still the same- if you want to measure mass in unicorns, then the upper section of the building had a mass of some twenty unicorns and it was able to crush each floor of one unicorn.

If you don't agree, then I ask you to calculate the mass of the balloon, because according to your junk physics, if we don't know the mass of the balloon, then it's impossible for the bowling ball to crush the balloon. You can't have it both ways.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I know m8...i said as i did because i was wondering why it was even being stated by exponent as a logical thought process.....I think your model holds true just fine....and it was a well thought out experiment....cheers to your efforts to show the laws of conservation and momentum.

I was trying to back up what you had stated....gravity does not need to be scaled....I said it earlier...it is just the only accelerating force that was available for the collapse...assuming there wasn't any other force of any kind present.....now i would use the explosive thought process....but i am always wary of using the term explosives...as for some reason it actually requires absolute proof on the Osers behalf....

you see if we think logically....really....the whole thing here and which i do try to stick to is removal of the resistive force.....the columns.

maybe if you do your experiment....do it with the resistance of the lower structure intact....then do it again by weakening the lower structure.....so one can see visibly that once resistance is removed(weakened...then the collapse progresses to the ground......but even then i am sure it would not count to the OSers......

even when free fall was being discussed years ago...the only time people started to change thoughts on it and go....hmmm...ok it was near free fall was when NIST got busted by keeping the time time to their model instead of using video evidence and plotting the actual time.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If we don't know the mass of the balloon, does this mean it's impossible for the bowling ball to break the balloon? Or does it simply mean the bowling ball has the force to overcome the resistance of the balloon regardless of what mass of the balloon actually is?

Definitely appears to be leaning in the STUPID Direction.

Was that balloon tested to see that it would support the bowling ball under static conditions?

Why should that matter? You've said about a thousand times that "we need to know the mass of the concrete on the floors",

That is not what I say. I ask about steel and concrete on each LEVEL. Saying floor gives you the opportunity to cause confusion. Each LEVEL had to be strong enough to support the weight of all LEVELS above.

What was that balloon designed and tested to be strong enough to support?

Demonstrate your brilliance for us Dave and your word game tap dancing to keep balloons in the air.

psik