What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
the911forum.freeforums.org...

From OWE:

"Scaling is one of the two reasons psikeyhackr's model fails miserably. The more important reason is that he does not understand the concept of the load-displacement relation for materials under yield. Because of this, he modeled something which is guaranteed to arrest, and which demonstrably has no relation to any load-bearing component in the towers. The model is utterly useless as a model of the tower collapses."


There appears to be a concensus that your experiment/video is nonsense.

I like a concensus. I bet you don't.

Do you agree with OWE that your model/video is indicative of nothing cuz of the scaling issues?

If not, why?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
the911forum.freeforums.org...

From OWE:

"Scaling is one of the two reasons psikeyhackr's model fails miserably. The more important reason is that he does not understand the concept of the load-displacement relation for materials under yield. Because of this, he modeled something which is guaranteed to arrest, and which demonstrably has no relation to any load-bearing component in the towers. The model is utterly useless as a model of the tower collapses."


There appears to be a concensus that your experiment/video is nonsense.

I like a concensus. I bet you don't.

Well it is certainly curious that neither OWE nor anyone else has built a physical model that can completely collapse in TEN YEARS. But everyone can come up with bullsh# EXCUSES. But where is anyone even talking about trying to build a model that can collapse.

He does not mention that my model is built AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. But that is not how skyscrapers are constructed.

psik

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

600 ton slab breaks 200 connections and falls while remaining perfectly horizontal.

And again. Nope. This is your strawman. And even then, you have not even brought evidence that your cliam of "friction" would be enough to halt the collapse.

Do you have evidence that friction would have any effect on the collapse speed?

Or are you just making a statement?

I never said friction would be enough to halt the collapse. I said it must be explained how the north tower could come down in less than 26 seconds. When has that been done. I demonstrated with my Python program that the conservation of momentum alone takes the time up to 12 seconds. But that is still without breakage or FRICTION. So friction would have to slow things down but you people don't even talk about the weight of the slab much less the number of connections.

So you just want people to BELIEVE without understanding.

psik

reply to post by ANOK


Care to explain your comment re the steel decking for the floors????

Funny because when I look at the pictures on the link below see pictures 2 and 3

You can see NOT all concrete has been turned to dust or the steel see YOUR BS

doesn't stack up unlike the debris

Floorslabs,decking and the reinforcing mesh used in the slab all compressed

www.stevespak.com...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Well it is certainly curious that neither OWE nor anyone else has built a physical model that can completely collapse in TEN YEARS.

Cuz everyone but you realizes the folly of building a scale model, when it is proven that there are scaling issues that cannot be overcome.

That would mean that a full size model would need to be built, and that is an even bigger folly.

OR... one uses a bounding situation like Bazant did and show that building a physical model is ludicrous cuz even in the most optimistic situation of column to column impact, nothing can halt the collapse progression.

These are the facts. Only your own personal shortcomings prevent you from seeing it.

But everyone can come up with bullsh# EXCUSES.

Scientific fact - scaling issues - is not bull#.

Only your own personal shortcomings prevent you from seeing it.

But where is anyone even talking about trying to build a model that can collapse.

You are the Lone Ranger on this issue. That would tell most people that their own personal beliefs are not correct and that perhaps a little introspection is in order.

Only your own personal shortcomings prevent you from seeing it.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I said it must be explained how the north tower could come down in less than 26 seconds. When has that been done.

Bazant did it, I believe in BLBG.

In it, he discusses ke losses to heat, friction, concrete breakage, air expulsion, buckling of every column, and others. So he went beyond what you want.

I demonstrated with my Python program that the conservation of momentum alone takes the time up to 12 seconds. But that is still without breakage or FRICTION.

Covered by Bazant.

ANd I have made a suggestion previously that you redo your Python program using reality asthe assumptions. Right now, it's GIGO.

Would you like me to repost it?

So friction would have to slow things down

By how much? 10 seconds? 1 second? .1 second? .01 second?

You have no idea, therefore you have no clue as to whether or not friction is a relevant ke sink or not.

You are tilting at winmills.

but you people don't even talk about the weight of the slab much less the number of connections.

The slabs were 600 tons. Greg has the amount of steel used for the trusses and floor pans.

There were 200 column to truss connections. NIST gave a failure rating of those connections.

What else do you require?

So you just want people to BELIEVE without understanding.

psik

No, believe me, like OWE, I wish that truthers could understand.

It's apparent from the way that you edit out most of my posts that you indeed understand that you are over your head and that your claims are unsubstantiated.

Dangerously close to trolling.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I try not to frequent the 911 forum. The ignorance is so rampant that it really is commical.

My favorite thing is undertanding how construction really works, how a structure is built, and what it takes for a super structure to support it's own weight, resisting gravity.

Almost every single person that makes silly replies has never worked in the construction industry, turned a screwdirver, or wrench themselves.

It really is simple that a structure consists of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of connections that all have a job to do within their operating specifications. If the piece or part is subjected to any stresses or forces outside of their specifications the piece or part can fail. A building is not a magical entity, they have certain guidlines that must be followed to be structurally sound and perform it's duty without any problems.

edit on 20-5-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

How in the world did all of those buildings fail exactly the same way? That is mathematically impossible(Almost).

reply to post by onecraftydude

How in the world did all of those buildings fail exactly the same way?

Ummm,

How else are they supposed to come down?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
the911forum.freeforums.org...

From OWE:

"Scaling is one of the two reasons psikeyhackr's model fails miserably. The more important reason is that he does not understand the concept of the load-displacement relation for materials under yield. Because of this, he modeled something which is guaranteed to arrest, and which demonstrably has no relation to any load-bearing component in the towers. The model is utterly useless as a model of the tower collapses."


There appears to be a concensus that your experiment/video is nonsense.

I like a concensus. I bet you don't.

Do you agree with OWE that your model/video is indicative of nothing cuz of the scaling issues?

If not, why?

I already explained how gravity could be scaled with a centrifuge but that it would be useless because it would increase the static load which would mean stronger supports anyway so the effect would cancel.

People just need to come up with excuses for why they can't build a physical model that will completely collapse to cover up the fact that it is impossible.

The concept of consensus must deal with the fact that 75% of the population scores below 111 on IQ tests.

www.eskimo.com...

People claiming a building can collapse and not even knowing the weight of the concrete slabs that they claim collapsed is pretty ridiculous. And then can't explain how it came down in less than 26 seconds. Nothing but excuses piled on excuses. Even the NIST admitted they needed the distributions of weight and then didn't get it and hasn't supplied it yet.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


The floor slab weight helps indicate how strong the connections had to be to hold it which VAST amounts of energy would be required to break them so any falling mass would SLOW DOWN.

The issue is not if the load would break the first support it hits the issue is if it will SLOW DOWN and have less energy for the one after that and less energy for the one after that.

My model demonstrates that supports are destroyed but the mass ultimately stops. So how could the north tower come down in less than TWENTY SIX SECONDS. It is the time that is IMPOSSIBLE without other factors involved. The Conservation of Momentum alone makes it take 12 seconds with no energy lost to breakage. And then our physicists are not even demanding accurate distribution of mass data. GREAT SCIENCE!

Believers do not require data. It's the 9/11 Religion.

psik

ON YOUR FLAWED MODEL mass drops on tubes NOT ,inside a tube, after each floor fails MORE mass is added in the WTC collapse!

Originally posted by onecraftydude

How in the world did all of those buildings fail exactly the same way? That is mathematically impossible(Almost).

They DIDN'T fall in exactly the same way, the result was the same, LOOK at the start of the South Tower collapse it's not the smae as the North Tower

Originally posted by wmd_2008
...after each floor fails MORE mass is added in the WTC collapse!

That is what you keep claiming, but it simply isn't true. I know it has to be true for your hypothesis to work, but in reality it's not how it happened. If it did there would be a stack of floors, pancaked, post collapsed.

Mass was surely being lost during the collapse, deduced simply from the post collapse debris distribution which was in a 360d arc around the towers, not in the footprint. The rubble could not stay in the footprint until the end, and then distribute itself outside the footprint. (don't waste your time claiming it did, because I'll just laugh and ignore you lol). Remember the floors were not just concrete, there was the steel pans and the truss assemblies.

A very simple fact that you and others have failed to understand in 10 years, and you all wonder why we don't take what you say very seriously. It's one of the most ridiculous claims I've heard, up there with space beams and sagging trusses (which of course you still have to prove is possible to start the collapse to begin with, another point you seem to be unable to grasp, even when I highlight sagging lol).

So how strong were those 1" and 5/8" bolts that allowed sagging trusses to pull in massive 4" thick steel box columns? Strong enough for that, but not strong enough to resist the collapse?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
They DIDN'T fall in exactly the same way, the result was the same, LOOK at the start of the South Tower collapse it's not the smae as the North Tower

And yet the post collapse outcome was exactly the same eh?

I think you lost the point in translation or something?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
...after each floor fails MORE mass is added in the WTC collapse!

That is what you keep claiming, but it simply isn't true. I know it has to be true for your hypothesis to work, but in reality it's not how it happened. If it did there would be a stack of floors, pancaked, post collapsed.

TA DAH!!!!

www.stevespak.com...

Picture 2 and 3

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
They DIDN'T fall in exactly the same way, the result was the same, LOOK at the start of the South Tower collapse it's not the smae as the North Tower

And yet the post collapse outcome was exactly the same eh?

I think you lost the point in translation or something?

YOU need to look more South Tower tilted towards the area of impact damage and fell before the North Tower DUE to greater mass above that damage.

So both towers DIDN'T collapse in exactly the same way, the METHOD of collapse was the same how they fell was NOT exactly the same.

know someone in another thread tried to use this vid as evidence against how the towers feel...not sure why...because if you watch the whole thing...and check behaviors in the structures....you will notice something about the three...count them...the three steel structures that are brought down...each and every one of them....they blast out the supports....and do they continue straight down....NOT ONCE....they impact...slow down...and then topple.....So what does this say....Resistance.....they resist the impact...actually stay somewhat intact...and topple.



but hey what the heck...i guess reality bites......they person tried toi say that topp down was a common occurrence...but NOT IN STEEL.....IT DOES NOT WORK....seeing is believing...so you can be blind and assume how steel reacts...or you can actually see how it reacts.

now lets look at steel demos.

and you all explain....because is see what is going on....just look where charges are set of...and lkook at the steel that is not charged and how it behaves



where the charges are not...it ALWAYS resists then topples....the steel never collapses straight down on itself....unless the charges placed dictates so.

Originally posted by ANOK
A very simple fact that you and others have failed to understand in 10 years, and you all wonder why we don't take what you say very seriously. It's one of the most ridiculous claims I've heard, up there with space beams and sagging trusses (which of course you still have to prove is possible to start the collapse to begin with, another point you seem to be unable to grasp, even when I highlight sagging lol).

Why are you lying so blatently ANOK? I've attempted to explain this to you in three different threads and pasted you a link to a scientific paper explaining it in detail more than a half dozen times.

In return you've stopped reading or replying to my posts, and have started pretending as if they don't exist.

Why are you afraid to face the truth?

reply to post by plube


Hey Plube. On the contrary, in the video you can see that the structural design of the building has significant result on its collapse. For example, there are tower blocks made out of prefabbed concrete visible, and they fail incredibly quickly and with little resistance. On the other hand there are poured RC structures with large CSA and they show huge jolts and resistance.

This is a perfect indicator of what happened in the towers, the parts that were damaged were not the huge vertical uprights (although sure they had some damage, but I hope you take my meaning). The floors themselves were essentially as weak as an inserted prefabbed section. They're designed to resist a specific weight, but nothing like what they experienced on that day.

I did reply to you a few pages ago by the way with a request about your model. Could you check that post out? If you use the actions link under my name you can click 'Posts In Thread' and find it easily.

Cheers!

reply to post by plube


The floors fell internaliy on the twin towers and the walls fell away! Also suggest you watch were the charges are set of first in high buildings low down on the structure

I don't think either of you two read what i said...there are only three steel structures in the film that were demolished...and each one of those toppled over....I am not talking about the concrete...and WMD you keep going on about the floor pancaking....but not once do you ever attempt to explain what you think happened to the core.....also you have show the angled truss seats...but you do not take into account the number of seats....showing the collapse of concrete structures is not valid in ever explaining WTC 1-2-7....the only types of demolition that can be considered is like for like...which i know is difficult concerning the tube in tube design of WTC 1 and 2 ....but Building seven is a completely different design.

And i know you all still believe that fires explain the collapses for some reason....but IMHO it does not....

so look again if you like..without any pre drawn conclusions...cause itook the time to look at every single collapse in the vids...to check for any similarities in construction what so ever.