What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Where in your delusion addled mind did you get the idea that the steel making up any of ext box columns were 4" thick at the level that the pull in was seen?

OK they may not have been that thick at that level, but no need to be rude about it.

It still doesn't change the main fact that sagging trusses could not put a pulling force on the columns, regardless of how thick the steel was. The columns were designed to take any force the floors could put on them plus the FoS. If they sagged from heat, how are they putting any more force on the columns? That is what you or anyone has yet to explain. Even IF the sagging put more force on the columns it could not have been enough to cause failure. Catenary action is not the answer...



Also how did columns pull in against the resistance of the cross bracing. Did the pull in pull in the whole core or just columns they were attached to? So how did the sagging trusses have the power to pull in the core against the resistance of cross bracing, and not fail the connections first? Are 1" bolts stronger than the core columns and the resistance against pull-in? Are you still claiming the connections were a week point? If so then I ask again how did they not fail before they could pull in the columns?

While we're talking about columns...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

See the little pics? See how the columns taper? That means the core was collapsing against an increasing resistance. Increasing resistance, plus the loss of Ke to deformation, friction, heat, sound etc., means the collapse would slow, and would stop before it could be complete. Even IF the Ke increased due to your flawed rubble stayed in the footprint nonsense, it would have to increase substantially to overcome the increasing resistance. The core was designed to hold the weight of all the floors above each level. Level one had to have the strength to hold the weight of everything above it, level 40 all the floors above it etc.

The contradictions abound mate. Try to answer these points without the insults and deflections this time eh? Focus on the point, not on irrelevant details. Understand the details, but you also have to put them in context with the big picture.

Originally posted by ANOK

OK they may not have been that thick at that level, but no need to be rude about it.

There's no "may" about it.

But it shows, once again, just how confused truthers can be about facts.

It still doesn't change the main fact that sagging trusses could not put a pulling force on the columns, regardless of how thick the steel was.

Lie.

You have been given a link from an actual physical test that confirms this. I gave you a link to an fea done by a truther that also confirms this. SO now you have 2 separate, independent tests - the truther Holy Grail - and still continue to repeat this falsehood.You do not address it cuz you are stating this for the sole purpose of trolling. That's ok though, I will reply anyways to point out just how intellectually bankrupt truthers are in their beliefs in an "inside job".

The columns were designed to take any force the floors could put on them plus the FoS.

Yes.

But heated core columns underwent thermal creep - iow, shortened - and transferred some of their loads onto those ext columns. plus, the ext columns were heated, making them weaker. Plus, the bowing wasover several stories - which, when we do some research about buckling lengths and how they get exponentially weaker as the buckling length increases, we put this all together and learn that:

Sagging trusses were not the only reason for the bowing ext columns. And by extension, we also learn that you are asking this question because:

1- you are unaware of these other factors
2- are aware, but ask anyways - which means you are once again trolling.

Catenary action is not the answer

Yes it is.

Your denial of a scientific fact does not change this..

Also how did columns pull in against the resistance of the cross bracing. Did the pull in pull in the whole core or just columns they were attached to? So how did the sagging trusses have the power to pull in the core against the resistance of cross bracing, and not fail the connections first?

The core?

Are you confused again, like when you confused the thickness of the ext column steel?

Are you still claiming the connections were a week point? If so then I ask again how did they not fail before they could pull in the columns?

Cuz the sagging trusses were not the only factor that resulted in bowing.

Originally posted by ANOK

Can you explain how sagging trusses could put a pulling force on the massive 4" thick box columns?

Quite ironic the guy thats posted hundreds of times "the steel is thicker lower down" gets caught out like that

I will also post this again as you have ignored it twice already

www.stevespak.com...

Pictures 2 and 3

Why no comment ANOK after all you said no pancaked floors?

Originally posted by ANOK
Also how did columns pull in against the resistance of the cross bracing. Did the pull in pull in the whole core or just columns they were attached to? So how did the sagging trusses have the power to pull in the core against the resistance of cross bracing, and not fail the connections first? Are 1" bolts stronger than the core columns and the resistance against pull-in? Are you still claiming the connections were a week point? If so then I ask again how did they not fail before they could pull in the columns?

ANOK I've linked you to papers explaining this, I've tried to explain it myself and you literally have just begun ignoring everything I post and ignoring anyone who explains this to you.

Why are you doing this? Do you think that by ignoring something it means it doesn't exist? Even psikey has to admit that Gregory Urich's table exists, you seem to think you can just deny the existence of evidence!

What proof would you like? Nobody is going to hang a 65 foot truss for you so we'll either have to look at FEA (which you agreed is acceptable) or theoretical models. Care to suggest one and do the calculations yourself? They're not amazingly hard.

Originally posted by exponent

Why are you doing this?

AT this point, trolling is becoming the most likely answer.

I find it ok though, since his statements have been so easily refuted. It serves as easy fodder to show just how intellectually and morally bankrupt truthers are.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The why did exponent duplicate the concept and come up with pretty much the same number? 12 seconds.

Because your code was so bad I reimplemented it. It doesn't provide any evidence towards your 26 second claim, or the myriad of bizarre claims you make.

The nice thing about it is that it is so simple only complete idiots cannot understand it and duplicate it. But the the Conservation of Momentum is too difficult for some people. What, no explanation for why the columns did not move in the Purdue simulation?

Perhaps the camera was fixed to them?

The 26 seconds does not have anything to do with my program and I never said it did. It has to be explained how the north tower came down in less than 26 seconds because that is the time for the Spire to come down. Your code gave about the same 12 second minimum time that my program did which was determined by the Conservation of Momentum. So how could the destruction of 90 stories due to gravitational collapse only add another 13 seconds to that?

And then you people don't even demand accurate human readable data from Official Sources on distribution of steel and concrete.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Because only TRUTHERS say the towers fell at free fall rate

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Sure, CLAIM things while not being able to specify the quantity of steel in the vicinity to be able to explain how that much steel had to be heated enough in less than two hours.

CLAIM to be educated while exhibiting obvious ignorance. And Urich admitted that he was interpolating. And where is the horizontal steel in the core specified?

psik

Your folly is on display for all to see. you asked how can a plane destroy the towers, are given a rebuttal that destroys your statement, and then instead of replying on topic, you change the subject.

this is called running away cuz you know that your question had no purpose other than to troll.

But as I said, you are an easy target to destroy. So keep on posting. i will reply every time to expose just how ridiculous truthers are.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast the the north tower collapse in 11 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in human history.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

You just keep CLAIMING things and not explaining a damn thing. And exponents program came up with about 12 seconds just like mine though he wants to bitch about my code like his opinion on that matters when I admitted it was a kludge when I first posted it. Now he want s to accuse me of saying the 26 seconds has something to do with my program. That is just the maximum time that most sources say the north tower collapse took. They say 25 seconds and I say the tower came down in less than 26 seconds.

But I show a 5 story gap, which we know did not happen, combined with constant speed of destruction of supposedly intact levels would take 19 seconds. So most of the supposed gravitational collapse would have to accelerate while destroying most of the structure and just leaving behind some of the core.

But of course pointing this out is TROLLING. Any thing that disagrees with you is SPAM and TROLLING.

So a decade of 9/11 isn't about physics, it is about who shouts nonsense the longest and loudest.

The Physics Profession let this crap happen because they should have resolved it in 2002.

psik

Don't really understand the arguments about why or how the towers came down.

If I was part of an inside job and decided to blow the WTC with explosives then it would surely be much simpler to place the blame on the same terrorist group who were hijacking the airliners.

The fact this didn't happen suggests that either, there were no explosives, or that the perpetrators of an inside job hadn't really thought this one through very well.

Originally posted by mirageman
If I was part of an inside job and decided to blow the WTC with explosives then it would surely be much simpler to place the blame on the same terrorist group who were hijacking the airliners.

The fact this didn't happen suggests that either, there were no explosives, or that the perpetrators of an inside job hadn't really thought this one through very well.

How do you suppose the Bush Crime Syndicate was going to explain how Al Qaeda was able to wire the buildings for demolition?

I worked in the WTC for many years. In fact the same thing goes for any office building: Maintenance workers are always tearing something up for whatever reason and people are oblivious. They could take sections down to the steel and nobody would think anything of it. But in this case it is well documented that the buildings were closed from the 50th floor up for the weekend prior to 911 for "cabling upgrades" and the security people said that there were an army of engineers going in and out of the building for 36 hours. Everybody got memos about this weeks in advance. There was no power and therefore the surveillance cameras recorded nothing. How convenient.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I've said it before but your analysis seems to me as a layman spot on and all the debunking in the world is not gong to change my opinion unless the debunking provides a better model or theory.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by mirageman
If I was part of an inside job and decided to blow the WTC with explosives then it would surely be much simpler to place the blame on the same terrorist group who were hijacking the airliners.

The fact this didn't happen suggests that either, there were no explosives, or that the perpetrators of an inside job hadn't really thought this one through very well.

How do you suppose the Bush Crime Syndicate was going to explain how Al Qaeda was able to wire the buildings for demolition?

I worked in the WTC for many years. In fact the same thing goes for any office building: Maintenance workers are always tearing something up for whatever reason and people are oblivious. They could take sections down to the steel and nobody would think anything of it. But in this case it is well documented that the buildings were closed from the 50th floor up for the weekend prior to 911 for "cabling upgrades" and the security people said that there were an army of engineers going in and out of the building for 36 hours. Everybody got memos about this weeks in advance. There was no power and therefore the surveillance cameras recorded nothing. How convenient.

edit on 29-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

Wow. So every company above that floor effectively had "no electronic security" and no power for a whole weekend?
It would be interesting to find out which companies were contracted to carry out this work. Even more so before the event.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.

So I will ask again what impact force would the above example you give generate, use a reasonable mass per floor and show everyone a calculation you and ANOK are always on about physics so give us an answer OR do you not want to do that because you would shot yourself in the foot!!!!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.

So far so good.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

And again, noext columns were crushed. it is a fact you cannot dispute.

And there is little evidence of any core columns being crushed either.

The only things being crushed/destroyed are the floor connections.

Therefore, your questions and analyses are not worth anything. just like your paper and loop model.

You just keep CLAIMING things and not explaining a damn thing. And exponents program came up with about 12 seconds just like mine

All this shows is that you can write code.

It does not mean that the assumptions are anywhere near correct. In fact, it they are proven wrong.

But of course pointing this out is TROLLING.

Yes it is. Since you do not address the valid points I have made about the erroneous assumptions in your Python program, and instead just repeat again what you have said, it is indeed.

But continue anyways. Everyone sees that you are studiously avoiding my reccommendations to you. No discussion of them on your part. No objections. No acknowledgement. Nothing.

This of course means that you KNOW that I have a vaild point but cannot address it. I guess this is a display of cognitive dissonance? ignoring that which challenges your beliefs? Nah, I wouldn't go that far. trolling is enough.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Because only TRUTHERS say the towers fell at free fall rate

9/11 ommission report states 10 seconds, and a vacuum free-fall time is 9.2.

0.8 seconds away from freefall according to the 9/11 ommission report, not much in it really!

Originally posted by kidtwist

9/11 ommission report states 10 seconds, and a vacuum free-fall time is 9.2.

0.8 seconds away from freefall according to the 9/11 ommission report, not much in it really!

Would you mind giving us an exact quote from the ommission report on the free fall time.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Because only TRUTHERS say the towers fell at free fall rate

You are free to provide a link to where I said that.

Name calling does not explain anything.

Just because they did not come down at free fall acceleration does not mean they did not come down too fast to have been a gravity only driven collapse.

psik

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.

So I will ask again what impact force would the above example you give generate, use a reasonable mass per floor and show everyone a calculation you and ANOK are always on about physics so give us an answer OR do you not want to do that because you would shot yourself in the foot!!!!

The dynamic load is going to depend on the rate of deceleration at impact. It is also affected by whether or not the impacting mass crumples. That is the thing about a lot of so called simulations. The falling block remains solid and rigid.

My physical model demonstrates that the same construction causes both sides to get crushed.

Real physical models cannot escape real physics. Computer programs do what the programmers tell them even if the programmers are wrong.

psik

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
There's no "may" about it.But it shows, once again, just how confused truthers can be about facts.

No it just not that important how thick they were at the point they supposedly got pulled in. The columns were designed to hold the weight of the floors at every level. So no matter how thick they were they could not be pulled in by sagging trusses. You just like to pick at irrelevant point to try to discredit what is being said.

I know they were not that thick at that level OK, I was just exaggerating for effect, like you folks do.

I am the one who constantly posts this...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

So no I am not confused, thank you.

Lie. You have been given a link from an actual physical test that confirms this. I gave you a link to an fea done by a truther that also confirms this. SO now you have 2 separate, independent tests - the truther Holy Grail - and still continue to repeat this falsehood.You do not address it cuz you are stating this for the sole purpose of trolling. That's ok though, I will reply anyways to point out just how intellectually bankrupt truthers are in their beliefs in an "inside job".

More insults, I am not lying.

I have been given no link that proves sagging trusses can pull in columns. Where is this link?

C'mon all you are doing here is attacking me, not proving your point. It's always 'you were given a link, or a paper to read'.

I have seen nothing that proves sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Yes. But heated core columns underwent thermal creep - iow, shortened - and transferred some of their loads onto those ext columns. plus, the ext columns were heated, making them weaker. Plus, the bowing wasover several stories - which, when we do some research about buckling lengths and how they get exponentially weaker as the buckling length increases, we put this all together and learn that:

How do you know the core columns were heated to anywhere near failure? That is just an assumption. I know for a fact that one hour of hydrocarbon fire would not cause the massive core box columns to fail. That is just nonsense, but of course you need to believe that don't you?

How would the columns shorten when heated? Heating causes expansion mate. Thermal creep? Citation needed. Please explain thermal creep.

Sagging trusses were not the only reason for the bowing ext columns. And by extension, we also learn that you are asking this question because:

1- you are unaware of these other factors
2- are aware, but ask anyways - which means you are once again trolling.

Can you not debate without constantly calling people liar or trolls? You wonder why I don't bother replying to you sometime?

So what are the other factors? I've been debating this for 8 years mate, I have seen no other factors. The whole NIST report hinges on their sagging truss hypothesis. I just want to know how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns, they were designed to hold the weight many times over. The trusses did not gain weight when they sagged, any extra force would just cause more sagging.

Yes it is.

Your denial of a scientific fact does not change this..

Catenary action does not work with sagging trusses only rigid objects like chains or wire.

That IS scientific fact.

Again watch this video, if you fail to understand the point then you fail to understand the concept...

The core?

Are you confused again, like when you confused the thickness of the ext column steel?

What? No you fail to understand what I'm asking. The core columns were cross braced, how did the trusses pull in columns against the resistance of the cross bracing? Why didn't the 1" and 5/8" bolts not fail first? They are just hypothetical questions to point out the contradiction in your claims.

Cuz the sagging trusses were not the only factor that resulted in bowing.

That doesn't answer my question, it's just a cop out. What other factors would cause the connections to suddenly be stronger than the columns. What about the claim the connections were the week point allowing the floors to collapse with no resistance? OSers have even posted pics of the columns with truss seats missing claiming that is why the collapse did not stop from resistance. Yet they didn't fail and allowed sagging trusses to pull in columns. The contradictions abound mate.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I've said it before but your analysis seems to me as a layman spot on and all the debunking in the world is not gong to change my opinion unless the debunking provides a better model or theory.

Why thank you. It is really wearing listening to idiotic arguments again and again.

Tell people two years ago that a program was a kludge and then some genius comes along and says the code is not elegant. Like I hadn't noticed.

psik