What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by exponent

 

You two should give these guys a call for data...

www.purdue.edu...

You are LATE.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are LATE.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik

Hello psikey. Have you added a gravity stage to your model yet? Have you figured out what caused inward bowing before collapse? Have you learned how to construct edge cases?

I'm waiting for so many answers off you, but all you can do is snort and pretend you've already answered them all.

Why is it so hard? Surely if it's as simple as you make out you can answer my questions quickly and succinctly. All I ever hear you doing though is repeating your mantra over and over and over

"HOW MANY TONS OF STEEL AND TONS OF CONCRETE"

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are LATE.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik

Hello psikey. Have you added a gravity stage to your model yet? Have you figured out what caused inward bowing before collapse? Have you learned how to construct edge cases?

I'm waiting for so many answers off you, but all you can do is snort and pretend you've already answered them all.

Why is it so hard? Surely if it's as simple as you make out you can answer my questions quickly and succinctly. All I ever hear you doing though is repeating your mantra over and over and over

"HOW MANY TONS OF STEEL AND TONS OF CONCRETE"

Are you implying that skyscrapers do not have be strong enough to hold up their own weight and that the Physics Profession should not have been demanding that information TEN YEARS AGO? That is the scientific travesty of 9/11. The refusal to solve a simple problem.

You are the one complaining about my maximum transfer of momentum and have not explained what to do as an alternative and what effect that would have. Using less than maximum transfer would just increase the collapse time which would demonstrate that my "magical" collapse is the minimum time like I have been saying.

You are only interested in muddying the waters and confusing people who know less than you do. Like you can discredit me by asking questions too stupid to respond to. It is not my fault that the stupid Purdue simulation contradicts the empirical data that the NIST collected on the south tower impact. Our schools and scientists are handing us a bunch of BS about 9/11.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Are you implying that skyscrapers do not have be strong enough to hold up their own weight and that the Physics Profession should not have been demanding that information TEN YEARS AGO? That is the scientific travesty of 9/11. The refusal to solve a simple problem.

Are you suggesting that a damaged and burning building cannot collapse because it held itself up before it was damaged and burning?

Are you serious?

reply to post by Varemia


I don't believe the implication that you have drawn, I don't think it's the idea that is being put across.

I have to wonder about your level of logic and might go through a few of your posts to see if there is similar pattern of mis-understandings

For a clue the statements are not mutually exclusive.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The refusal to solve a simple problem.

It's not only 9/11 that suffers from this fault, it's one of the tragedies of our time.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Are you implying that skyscrapers do not have be strong enough to hold up their own weight and that the Physics Profession should not have been demanding that information TEN YEARS AGO? That is the scientific travesty of 9/11. The refusal to solve a simple problem.

Are you suggesting that a damaged and burning building cannot collapse because it held itself up before it was damaged and burning?

Are you serious?

A building over 1000 feet tall and only damaged in its top 15% cannot completely collapse. Your extreme generalization of the problem is absurd. A three story building does not need the same distribution of strength and mass as one 1360 feet tall.

I showed that mass alone without supports having to be broken make it necessary for a collapse to take 12 seconds, destruction of supports would have to stretch that time, so why do some claim the north tower came down in less time than that? Why do you imply that we are talking about just any building? Maintaining confusion?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It appears that you understand that different buildings are built differently. However, you do not understand the design differences of the Twin Towers and the consequences of its design on its survivability.

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It appears that you understand that different buildings are built differently. However, you do not understand the design differences of the Twin Towers and the consequences of its design on its survivability.

The people who have chosen to BELIEVE that the airliner impacts and resulting fires could totally destroy the towers must come up with some kind of rationalizations for their BELIEF. The tube-in-tube design of the towers was a change in the horizontal distribution of the steel compared to a conventional design. But not necessarily a change in the vertical distributions. It is GRAVITY which must determine that and the ability to withstand the wind.

A collapse involves vertical movement so that steel distribution must be factored in. So regardless of what actually happened the Physics Profession should have been asking about that long before now. But then BELIEVERS don't need data. Physics is not supposed to be about BELIEF.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It appears that you understand that different buildings are built differently. However, you do not understand the design differences of the Twin Towers and the consequences of its design on its survivability.

The people who have chosen to BELIEVE that the airliner impacts and resulting fires could totally destroy the towers must come up with some kind of rationalizations for their BELIEF. The tube-in-tube design of the towers was a change in the horizontal distribution of the steel compared to a conventional design. But not necessarily a change in the vertical distributions. It is GRAVITY which must determine that and the ability to withstand the wind.

A collapse involves vertical movement so that steel distribution must be factored in. So regardless of what actually happened the Physics Profession should have been asking about that long before now. But then BELIEVERS don't need data. Physics is not supposed to be about BELIEF.

psik

The open floor design of the towers contradicts you. There was NO vertical support in the majority of the towers. They were held up by the core and external columns remaining intact at a weight equilibrium. If some of the supports fail, and stuff begins to fall and distribute weight unevenly, there is a danger of collapse. In the case of the towers, it resulted in a complete collapse.

Originally posted by Varemia

The open floor design of the towers contradicts you. There was NO vertical support in the majority of the towers. They were held up by the core and external columns remaining intact at a weight equilibrium. If some of the supports fail, and stuff begins to fall and distribute weight unevenly, there is a danger of collapse. In the case of the towers, it resulted in a complete collapse.

According to the way you are idiotically using the term there is "NO vertical support" in the "majority" of any skyscrapers.

How much floor space do the columns in any skyscraper take up? It is just a matter of how much distance is between the vertical supports.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Are you implying that skyscrapers do not have be strong enough to hold up their own weight...

No I am saying your model is broken as it has no room for the masses to be accelerated after the initial collision. It makes a fundamental mistake in assuming that paper loops scale to represent whole floors, when they do not.

You are the one complaining about my maximum transfer of momentum and have not explained what to do as an alternative and what effect that would have. Using less than maximum transfer would just increase the collapse time which would demonstrate that my "magical" collapse is the minimum time like I have been saying.

I have fully explained it. If we consider only the floor sections and the mass they contain, we can establish a reasonable minimum. Of course the 'hard' minimum is freefall time, but that's not a realistic minimum.

You are only interested in muddying the waters and confusing people who know less than you do. Like you can discredit me by asking questions too stupid to respond to. It is not my fault that the stupid Purdue simulation contradicts the empirical data that the NIST collected on the south tower impact. Our schools and scientists are handing us a bunch of BS about 9/11.

You discredit yourself in this quote psikey. You condemn all schools and scientists because you still remain under the delusion you have some unique insight. I have shown repeatedly that your insight is false, your have no model that would be affected by the data accuracy, and you do not understand how to use the data if you had it.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be personally insulting, but the fact is you have made and continue to make a number of mistakes. You do this while shouting about how everyone else is mistaken and the whole of the physics + engineering professions are ignorant to the point of guilt.

It's nonsense, you need to wake up and realise that you are deluding yourself.

Originally posted by exponent
You discredit yourself in this quote psikey. You condemn all schools and scientists because you still remain under the delusion you have some unique insight. I have shown repeatedly that your insight is false, your have no model that would be affected by the data accuracy, and you do not understand how to use the data if you had it.

So where is your explanation for less than maximal transfer of momentum and what effect it will have? You were the one complaining about that.

The schools cannot change that fact that the Empire State Building is 81 years old and that Newtonian Physics is 300 years old. So what do they do by saying NOTHING? Are you saying that engineering schools could not scale up my physical model when they can do things like this?

www.youtube.com...

You see this is not about Bazant and Newton's Third Law of motion it is all about psikeyhackr's over inflated ego.



How do our engineering schools explain not shooting Bazant down ten years ago? This is an issue involving the schools alright because the US went to war because of the psychological atmosphere created by 9/11. What would have happened if in 2002, ten major engineering schools had held a press conference and said there was no way airliners could destroy buildings that big that fast? But here we are ten years later and the schools can't even point out that the NIST does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers much less the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings. But then what engineering school has discussed the location of the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Try finding any mention of that in the NCSTAR1 report.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So where is your explanation for less than maximal transfer of momentum and what effect it will have? You were the one complaining about that.

In the reply you quoted from.

Are you saying that engineering schools could not scale up my physical model...

No I'm saying that they have no need to. They understand the things you do not.

You see this is not about Bazant and Newton's Third Law of motion it is all about psikeyhackr's over inflated ego.

Indeed it is. You have convinced yourself that you have some insight that the rest of the physics and engineering community do not. You are wrong. Unless you accept that they are much better trained and experience and have actually looked into the issue, then you will continue to fail to understand the topic.

How do our engineering schools explain not shooting Bazant down ten years ago? This is an issue involving the schools alright because the US went to war because of the psychological atmosphere created by 9/11. What would have happened if in 2002, ten major engineering schools had held a press conference and said there was no way airliners could destroy buildings that big that fast? But here we are ten years later and the schools can't even point out that the NIST does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers much less the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings.

Again we can see you rationalising that they should have hosted these press conferences and that their lack of doing so condemns them. You don't realise that your unflinching faith in the should portion results in your ignorance in the latter.

They don't hold these press conferences or demand this data because they don't have any need for it. NISTs recommendations have been adopted, current buildings are designed with this sort of progressive failure in mind. The community has spoken and their silence has been deafening.

But then what engineering school has discussed the location of the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Try finding any mention of that in the NCSTAR1 report.

Why would it be part of NCSTAR1? If a building has split into an 'upper section' then the whole report is worthless. It is supposed to prevent these failures in future, not catalogue the minutiae of the collapse for laymen.

Originally posted by exponent
Why would it be part of NCSTAR1? If a building has split into an 'upper section' then the whole report is worthless. It is supposed to prevent these failures in future, not catalogue the minutiae of the collapse for laymen.

So they don't have to explain anything and laymen are supposed to be ignorant.

The center of mass of a tilted 29 story section of building is MINUTIAE?

So ultimately you are just saying the dummies that the experts keep ignorant are supposed to believe what the experts tell them because the experts say so.

But if laymen understand too much of this simple stuff for themselves then they could not help but come to the conclusion that the experts are full of crap. But that is the position the experts have put themselves in with TEN YEARS of this nonsense. The next Sept. 11th will be the 10th anniversary of the EXPERTS not resolving this simple issue of THREE HUNDRED YEAR OLD Newtonian Physics.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So they don't have to explain anything and laymen are supposed to be ignorant.

The center of mass of a tilted 29 story section of building is MINUTIAE?

When your objective is to prevent any 'section' ever tilting or disconnecting in any way then yes. It's akin to asking how many pieces an egg broke into when your objective was to stop it from smashing.

So ultimately you are just saying the dummies that the experts keep ignorant are supposed to believe what the experts tell them because the experts say so.

Psikey, no expert is keeping anyone ignorant. You remain ignorant because you already assume you understand everything and don't bother to learn.

But if laymen understand too much of this simple stuff for themselves then they could not help but come to the conclusion that the experts are full of crap. But that is the position the experts have put themselves in with TEN YEARS of this nonsense

Once again we see you act as if you know something all experts do not. You don't. Seriously psikey, this is delusional behaviour. You keep repeating yourself as if it would change anything.

You do not have some special insight that all physics and engineering groups do not. I don't know how I can say it any plainer than this. If you keep repeating yourself I'm going to stop replying again because I don't think it's mentally healthy for you. Let me ask you a new question: what possible force has kept tens of thousands of experts silent on this topic? Is it that they are being coerced or are they just not as smart as you?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So they don't have to explain anything and laymen are supposed to be ignorant.

The center of mass of a tilted 29 story section of building is MINUTIAE?

When your objective is to prevent any 'section' ever tilting or disconnecting in any way then yes. It's akin to asking how many pieces an egg broke into when your objective was to stop it from smashing.

How are you supposed to prevent it if you don't know how it happened?

How are you supposed to figure out how it happened if you don't ask a question as simple as, "Where was the center of mass?".

But after TEN YEARS the stupidity must be justified because it is such an obvious question. It is even more important because the WTC was a tube-in-tube design. The core supported 53% of the buildings weight, according to the NIST. So whether or not that center of mass was still above the core could be important. That could mean that one side of the building outside of the core had to support more than 4 times its design load. So why didn't the tilted portion crush one side of the building? But where have the EXPERTS pointed out something that simple and obvious in TEN YEARS?

Another estimate, which gives the initial overload ratio that exists only for a small fraction of a second at the moment of impact, is

Pdyn=P0 = (A=P0)*(2pgEefh)**0.5 64.5

where A = cross section area of building, Eef = cross section stiffness of all columns divided by A, p = specific mass of building per unit volume. This estimate is calculated from the elastic wave equation which yields the intensity of the step front of the downward pressure wave caused by the impact if the velocity of the upper part at the moment of impact on the critical floor is considered as the boundary condition.

www-math.mit.edu...

That quote is from the bottom of page 4 of Bazant's paper.

These are the interesting parts of the equation:

p = specific mass of building per unit volume

That is assuming the density of the building is the same all of the way down. Like the amount of steel does not increase down the building. But it is impossible for it to not change because the first level of the building must support A LOT more weight that the top five LEVELS. He is doing the same thing Greening did with that divide by 110.

Eef = cross section stiffness of all columns divided by A

Didn't the cross sectional stiffness have to change down the building as the thickness of the columns changed? The trouble with mathematics is that the practitioners are usually making simplifying assumptions and then other people have to study the math to find what the assumptions were. Of course if the simplifying assumptions are STUPID....

But then the experts must defend the stupidity. And of course they are EXPERTS.

psik

Originally posted by maxella1
Mine are;

*The government is so incompetent that they cannot do anything right.

That's assuming the government is there for the benefit of the people.

* It's impossible that they could keep it a secret because so many people had to be involved, somebody would blow the whistle.

Appeal to probability. Plus, people have been blowing the whistle. That you wish to look the other way is your problem

* So what if they lied to the people about almost everything they do?

Then people will realize the government is not there to protect them.

*The only evidence truthers have is YouTube videos.

Nonsense. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth, and there goes your baseless assertion.

*They are covering up their incompetents not crimes.

Why would they need to cover that up if everyone already knows they are incompetent like you yourself claimed..?

And my favorite of them all is

*Truthers make things up because it's so much more fun to think that it's a government conspiracy.

Proof by stereotype.

It's funny how all these arguments are excuses to not look at the data and information. If these are the best arguments you people have, I feel sorry for you.

reply to post by vasaga


Why are you making your post seem like all the quotes are from maxella when they're not?!

You should label things more clearly.

reply to post by kidtwist

They are...

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by kidtwist

 

They are...

It looked like maxella was writing 'truthers' but I know maxella would not use such ridiculous stereotyping.

I can see now that the stars '*' are just maxella quoting comments from the idiot stereotypers here, and I see you're one of the idiot stereotyping gang too! Happy trolling vagsaga!