Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

psikeyhackr said:
When I was 17 years old I was filling out my application to MIT. I didn't get in but I got an interview.

That is what I find funny about this site. I have seen THREE threads about Loose Change. I don't give a damn about that crap. 911 MYSTERIES is much better.

video (dot) google.com/videosearch?q=911+mysteries&sitesearch=

psik
Click to expand...

uh oh, we've got a clunkity clunker.
 
WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...

You were complaining about my use of "EXPERT" and "LAYMAN" so I showed you where NIST claimed to be experts.

Now you want to switch subjects.

Then of course there were the huge fires that erupted which had a negative effect on both the yield strength and the modulus of elasticity of the steel. But you probably don't have a clue as to what those mean, you haven't even figured out that structural steel all weighs the same amount regardless of grade.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, another genius that needs to convince himself that other people are stupid.

So where is NISTs raw data for the temperatures of these HUGE FIRES? As in "paint deformation" and "microscopic steel analysis". Shouldn't we know the quantity of steel in these HUGE FIRES to figure out if the steel can get hot enough to weaken in order for the collapse to begin?

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Why do people think that stupid analogy is intelligent?

Can a man stand in one place for 28 years without eating or drinking?

You are comparing a biological organism to an inanimate object. :rolleyes:

psik
Click to expand...
Care to tell me what a 175 ton airplane has to do with a 500,000 ton building? Look up "strawman fallacy". Dip [rule 10]
 
Can the mods split off this tangent? This was a wonderful, focused thread and then another standard issue twoofer kiddie wandered in doing the same "victory through repetition" thing that makes so many of these threads boring and unreadable.

He got his specific answer, he's retreated to copying and pasting the same talking points we've seen ten thousand times before.
 
Last edited:
psikeyhackr said:
I don't give a damn about that crap. 911 MYSTERIES is much better.
Click to expand...

You get your engineering knowledge from Sophie, the clunkity clunk lady, do you?

I think I know why you didn't get into MIT.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes. You've crossed over from stupidity into outright incoherence. Firstly, what makes you think that your fantasy tower made from wooden blocks has any relation to reality? Your suggestion that the bottom 10 floors weigh 11 times as much as the top 10 floors is far less realistice than the approximation that they all weigh the same, since it's only the support columns that need to vary in weight and not the floor trusses or concrete slabs. Secondly, how many times do you have to be told that the information all exists before you stop complaining that it doesn't? Read the paper I already directed you to.

And finally, it's Dr. Greening.

Dave
Click to expand...

I am not claiming my blocks match the distribution of mass of the WTC I was simply demonstrating that Mr. Greening's assumption of equal mass per level, by dividing the total mass by 110, has to yield an incorrect result for potential energy since the WTC had to be bottom heavy. In addition he ignored the basements.

Do you have a problem with Doctors making mistakes? :D

psik
 
David Wong said:
Can the mods split off this tangent? This was a wonderful, focused thread and then another standard issue twoofer kiddie wandered in doing the same "victory through repetition" thing that makes so many of these threads boring and unreadable.

He got his specific answer, he's retreated to copying and pasting the same talking points we've seen ten thousand times before.
Click to expand...
I agree! And I also am sorry that I added to the distraction.
 
psikeyhackr said:
I am not claiming my blocks match the distribution of mass of the WTC I was simply demonstrating that Mr. Greening's assumption of equal mass per level, by dividing the total mass by 110, has to yield an incorrect result for potential energy since the WTC had to be bottom heavy. In addition he ignored the basements.

Do you have a problem with Doctors making mistakes? :D

psik
Click to expand...

I don't.

Now, could you respond to the imperfect Dr. Greening's request ...

I therefore challenge you to post your alleged e-mail to me on this thread and I will answer it on this thread.
Click to expand...

Your attention to this matter will be appreciated. :)
 
... So why shouldn't people that do not have degrees in physics or architecture or structural engineering be able to understand how a 175 ton airliner could cause a 500,000 ton building to collapse straight down to the ground and why is the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each level too much to ask?...
Click to expand...

I don't want to go searching for exact details on impact velocity, but there are a lot of factors involved. Just a few are:

The effect of the angle of penetration of the jets
The fact they banked just prior to impact to add a bit of twisting force (presumably to spread the damage over more levels? or a last minute "**** this" on behalf of the hijackers?)
The speed of the jets
The weight of the jets
The amount of fuel on board
The type of steel used in construction of the building
The design of the internal steel framework, load balancing etc... etc...

But, for even just a basic guess at how a plane could bring down a building, try considering that the building may be a massive 600000 ton structure, but it is a delicately balanced structure. At an extreme I would hazard a guess that you would only need to displace a few kilograms of that kind of structure in the right direction to cause the entire building to collapse, say if you simply cut through the right beams in the right places, just enough to collapse one floor - the rest would soon follow.

So imagine a 170000kg jet traveling at about mach 0.8 or around 851 km/h which is about 236ms-1...

A basic view of the momentum involved is expressed in the formula p=mv...

So the jets, if you consider only the overall of each would "approximate" to around 170000 * 236 = 40,120,000kgms-1

Thats a lot of force to come to a standstill in just over a second. Forty million tons of force in that first moment of impact. A 600 thousand ton building pales in comparison. The only reason the building stood for as long as it did was because the duration of that force was exceedingly short as the plane disintegrated and transferred its momentum into the structure of the building (and partially out the other side).

Its been a long time since I studied college physics, can someone please double check my rough estimate.

I double checked my figures on the 767 weight and on wikipedia (can't post a link sorry) and made assumptions on the actual 767 variant and the speed of impact (assumed it was cruising speed or just over). Also I haven't even bothered to think about calculating torques, surface areas of the plane or building and the effect they have on focussing or dissipating forces, but needless to say most of the momentum would have somehow been absorbed by the buildings.

Anyway if all math checks out, how could a forty million ton force applied to the top of a building not cause critical damage? (which is incidentally another factor - if you ever used a spanner, you will know that pushing a lever further from its pivot point makes it easier to rotate, crashing the jets higher up would have the same effect of applying more torque to the building)

Ok, so now after smashing the buildings with a massive sledgehammer, soften and buckle the steel with fires and tell me they won't come down?
 
psikeyhackr said:
I am not claiming my blocks match the distribution of mass of the WTC I was simply demonstrating that Mr. Greening's assumption of equal mass per level, by dividing the total mass by 110, has to yield an incorrect result for potential energy since the WTC had to be bottom heavy. In addition he ignored the basements.

Do you have a problem with Doctors making mistakes? :D

psik
Click to expand...
As Dr Greening said;

SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS
 
psikeyhackr said:
Thanks for the info on Lon Waters. It should be possible to calculate the weight of a one foot length of each type of core column section and add up the weights on every level. Is each length of core column section 36 feet long? Is there a table with the heights of every level of the building? This is the first I have heard that the basements were 10 feet instead of 12.

psik
Click to expand...

All the columns were not exactly 36 ft but that is a close enough approximation for the type of analyses anyone is doing (except NIST). If you have time to read my article you will see that I did calculate the steel mass based on the individual column dimensions on a number of floors and then interpolate between them. I checked the interpolated values and they were fairly close. This creates is a slight bias towards more weight higher up, but I haven't seen that this effects either collapse continuation or fall times to a significant degree. I also calculate the top few floors individually because they deviated alot.

You can see the floor heights in diagrams in NIST NCSTAR1-1 (p.18-19). The mechanical floors were 14'. Floor B6 was 11 ft and floors B5-B2 were 10 ft. Floor B1 was 16 ft. There are a few other floors that don't conform to the 12' norm which were mostly 14 ft.
 
Actually I think my calcs are out by a factor of ten - make that 400,000 tons of momentum... Still pretty darn big. I hope it helps give a simpler picture of the forces involved, regardless of the intricate details its a bloody big whack.
 
Last edited:
Humanoid said:
The effect of the angle of penetration of the jets
The fact they banked just prior to impact to add a bit of twisting force (presumably to spread the damage over more levels? or a last minute "**** this" on behalf of the hijackers?)
Click to expand...


One minor point: Why bother assuming the banking was intentional?
It doesn't really matter one way or another whether they banked on purpose, or merely because they were poor pilots.

I confess to not looking over your numbers. I'm feeling too lazy right now.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Secondly, how many times do you have to be told that the information all exists before you stop complaining that it doesn't? Read the paper I already directed you to.

Dave
Click to expand...

I have already pointed out an absurdity in Urich's data. But even more absurd is that most of the engineering schools in the US haven't come up with such info. Why is one man in Sweden doing this? MIT students were doing this in 1970.

In the novel's introduction, Niven says that MIT students attending the 1970 World Science Fiction Convention chanted, "The Ringworld is unstable! The Ringworld is unstable!" Niven says that one reason he wrote The Ringworld Engineers was to address these engineering problems.
Click to expand...
en (dot) wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ringworld_Engineers

Why make such a big deal about a sci-fi book in 1970 and not be curious about a 500,000 ton building collapsing in 2001?

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Why make such a big deal about a sci-fi book in 1970 and not be curious about a 500,000 ton building collapsing in 2001?

psik
Click to expand...

Because maybe only lay-people are really at all surprised when a heavily damaged building suffers catastrophic structural failure and gravity causes it to dis-conbobulate (a structural engineering term from the 12th century)?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes. You've crossed over from stupidity into outright incoherence. Firstly, what makes you think that your fantasy tower made from wooden blocks has any relation to reality? Your suggestion that the bottom 10 floors weigh 11 times as much as the top 10 floors is far less realistice than the approximation that they all weigh the same, since it's only the support columns that need to vary in weight and not the floor trusses or concrete slabs. Secondly, how many times do you have to be told that the information all exists before you stop complaining that it doesn't? Read the paper I already directed you to.

And finally, it's Dr. Greening.

Dave
Click to expand...

The heaviest floor was 5 times as heavy as lightest. The steel on floor 11 was 14 times as heavy as the steel on floor 105.
 
Then my question is how is each floor supporting the floors above. IIRC, only the columns bore the weight of all the floors. So, when the 26 storys of building landed on floor 84, how was that weight supposed to be distrubuted to allow that floor to be able to slow down the momentum of the falling section?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom