View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
• Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

22 43.14%
• Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

0 0%
• Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

10 19.61%
• Allah!

2 3.92%
• People keep flogging a dead horse!

17 33.33%

1. Originally Posted by John99
you put honey and vinegar on mcgyver?
No, a Fly!

2. Originally Posted by leopold99
the box column dimensions have been published.
the floor plan is also known.
i would imagine that the perimeter tree columns are also known.
what's left to consider?
.
Haven't you read what the NIST report has to say about the perimeter wall panels?

They said the original design called for 14 types but only 12 were used because the manufacturer got permission to upgrade 2 types. Probably because it was cheaper to manufacture them that way. But the NIST does not tell us the number or weight of each type of wall panel. The only reason we know the weight of the heaviest type, 22 tons, is because it is in an engineering journal from 1970.

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/system:list-all-pages

Now considering that the NIST had 3 years and \$20,000,000 to produce their 10,000 pages do you think the specification of the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each level of the towers is too much to ask?

I have had the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD for two years. Have you ever downloaded it?

psik

3. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
.
The only reason we know the weight of the heaviest type, 22 tons, is because it is in an engineering journal from 1970.

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/system:list-all-pages
then why not use 22 tons?

I have had the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD for two years. Have you ever downloaded it?

psik
i have no idea if i have it or not.
i have about 15 or so CD-R discs that i've burned since 9/11, and that isn't including the videos.

4. i have no idea if i have it or not.
.
That sounds like sufficient reason for me to not pay attention to you to me.

psik

5. PS - Was that a proper mixture of honey and vinegar MacGyver1968? You know I have such poor taste in that area.
You might want to add a little more honey...make that alot more honey. Cpt. did take the time to respond to your post...why be such a jerk to him? I don't think he insulted you or anything. He tried to show you an easier way to do a calculation, and you take it as an attack.

You're just a complete douche to anyone who tries to talk with you...I'm done with you...congratulations you are the first to make my ignore list.

I'm sure your in tears over it.

6. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
.
That sounds like sufficient reason for me to not pay attention to you to me.

psik
no problem.
do you really need a 15 volume report to tell you that a person will die if they jump out a 15 story window?

7. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
.
That sounds like sufficient reason for me to not pay attention to you to me.

psik
What a pompous attitude! And you can't even write a simple sentence without wording it awkwardly - no wonder you believe this junk!!! Your thoughts are scattered like dust in the wind.

8. Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
You might want to add a little more honey...make that alot more honey. Cpt. did take the time to respond to your post...why be such a jerk to him? I don't think he insulted you or anything. He tried to show you an easier way to do a calculation, and you take it as an attack.
.
Then I have to ask if you understood the equation he put up?

Just a note on your methodology- you can use $t=\frac{v_f-v_i}{g}$ to calculate times, no need to solve a quadratic equation once you have initial and final velocities for each interval.
.
In the FALL OF PHYSICS these simulated masses are hitting each other in sequence. The first drop begins from a standing start and is easy to calculate. But after the first impact things get complicated. The combined masses have an initial velocity called vi and they are going to undergo gravitational acceleration for 16 feet before hitting the 3rd mass. So I must compute the time that it will take then multiply that time by gravitational acceleration to get the velocity increase and then add that to the initial velocity to get the final velocity, vf. But his equation is based on already knowing vf and then he says I don't need the quadratic equation.

But he says he is a Physics Graduate Student. And says my model is garbage and you say he isn't insulting. At best he is a condescending dummy making a silly mistake. He is telling me how to compute t from vf but when I was writing FALL OF PHYSICS I didn't know t or vf and had to compute t before I could calculate vf. If anything I am inclined to doubt that he is a physics graduate student.

It is as though you BELIEVED the words he said instead of understanding how the math related to the physics.

You expect me to "suffer fools gladly". No my personality can't handle it. I can barely do it in real space, I don't have to bother in cyberspace. You are more concerned with being nice then solving a problem that has already dragged on at least SIX YEARS TOO LONG. And the people in the Science area want to call this pseudo-science while they won't even ask about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper or complain about the NIST not specifying the concrete in 10,000 pages. Give Me a Break!

psik

9. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
.
And the people in the Science area want to call this pseudo-science while they won't even ask about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper or complain about the NIST not specifying the concrete in 10,000 pages. Give Me a Break!

psik
you have the means to find what you are looking for, so go find it already.

What a pompous attitude! And you can't even write a simple sentence without wording it awkwardly - no wonder you believe this junk!!! Your thoughts are scattered like dust in the wind.
.
The NIST NCSTAR1 report consists of 54 separate reports. As far as I know they must be downloaded individually so if you had done that I don't see how you could possibly not know it. But if you haven't done it but claim you don't know that would mean you don't know what the NCSTAR1 report is. So why am I supposed to be impressed by 15 DVDs.

It is like you are trying to play an obvious bluff and get upset when it doesn't work. Make a big deal out of awkward English if you want but I am the one who has spent hours searching the NCSTAR1 report but you expect me to be impressed by someone who "doesn't know if he has it".

So nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11. It is now more than 3,000 killed in the Middle-East, and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed but you are bent out of shape over my supposed pomposity but don't even know if you have downloaded the official government report on the destruction of the buildings that started all of this bullshit.

psik

11. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
.
Then I have to ask if you understood the equation he put up?

.
In the FALL OF PHYSICS these simulated masses are hitting each other in sequence. The first drop begins from a standing start and is easy to calculate. But after the first impact things get complicated. The combined masses have an initial velocity called vi and they are going to undergo gravitational acceleration for 16 feet before hitting the 3rd mass. So I must compute the time that it will take then multiply that time by gravitational acceleration to get the velocity increase and then add that to the initial velocity to get the final velocity, vf. But his equation is based on already knowing vf and then he says I don't need the quadratic equation.

But he says he is a Physics Graduate Student. And says my model is garbage and you say he isn't insulting. At best he is a condescending dummy making a silly mistake. He is telling me how to compute t from vf but when I was writing FALL OF PHYSICS I didn't know t or vf and had to compute t before I could calculate vf. If anything I am inclined to doubt that he is a physics graduate student.

It is as though you BELIEVED the words he said instead of understanding how the math related to the physics.

You expect me to "suffer fools gladly". No my personality can't handle it. I can barely do it in real space, I don't have to bother in cyberspace. You are more concerned with being nice then solving a problem that has already dragged on at least SIX YEARS TOO LONG. And the people in the Science area want to call this pseudo-science while they won't even ask about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper or complain about the NIST not specifying the concrete in 10,000 pages. Give Me a Break!

psik
No..to me his formula was just a jumble of greek letters. But I'm actively learning as much as I can to correct that.

He didn't insult you...he called your model garbage...there's a difference. He attacked your position, and you in turn attacked him personally. He offered a better way of calculating freefall, not knowing you didn't have all that data..and you burned him for it. He was just a visitor to our little thread...and you treated him like shit.

Maybe you don't give a fuck..but there are rules for behavior. You should learn them...or the mods will make your stay here a short one.

12. But I'm actively learning as much as I can to correct that.
.
Well I don't think you will learn it from him.

He also said this:
The WTC is said to have been collapsing internally before the exterior gave in,
Have you heard that anywhere? The only thing I can think of related to that is the antenna of the north tower going down into the building. But it would still have to be explained how the conservation of momentum would allow the core could come down on top the lower core.

psik

13. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
.
The NIST NCSTAR1 report consists of 54 separate reports. As far as I know they must be downloaded individually so if you had done that I don't see how you could possibly not know it. But if you haven't done it but claim you don't know that would mean you don't know what the NCSTAR1 report is. So why am I supposed to be impressed by 15 DVDs.

It is like you are trying to play an obvious bluff and get upset when it doesn't work. Make a big deal out of awkward English if you want but I am the one who has spent hours searching the NCSTAR1 report but you expect me to be impressed by someone who "doesn't know if he has it".

So nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11. It is now more than 3,000 killed in the Middle-East, and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed but you are bent out of shape over my supposed pomposity but don't even know if you have downloaded the official government report on the destruction of the buildings that started all of this bullshit.

psik
HA-HA-HA!!!!!!! You've yet again shown just how much of a dummy you really are by not even being able to pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!

It was NOT me that said ANYTHING about DVDs nor about not "knowing if I have it."

Like I said, mentally you're defective because your thoughts and attention are as scattered as the dust in a huge wind!!!

What an asinine and useless individual you are - completely worthless to yourself and anyone else!

14. are you having problems with attention to details here psikeyhacker?
i believe i am the one you directed the following post to, so i'll respond to it.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
So nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11. It is now more than 3,000 killed in the Middle-East, and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed but you are bent out of shape over my supposed pomposity but don't even know if you have downloaded the official government report on the destruction of the buildings that started all of this bullshit.

psik
yes, i have both the official report and the fema report along with a shitload of other documents and videos.

15. Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
I am astonished by your brilliance. It is so nice to know I didn't need the quadratic equation. But your equation depends on KNOWING THE FINAL VELOCITY. But when I started doing these calculations I didn't know the final velocity so how was I supposed to compute it without using the quadratic equation? Please enlighten me further?
The equation you're looking for is $v_f^2=v_i^2+2gd$. Most high school graduates I know learned this when they were 16 or younger. You know what $v_i$ and $d$ are, so you can use this to solve for $v_f^2$ and use physical reasoning to choose the appropriate sign on the square root. Then you use the equation I gave you to solve for $t$. No need to apply the quadratic formula. Given the order of presentation of your data, I assumed you had found the values of $v_f$ at the very beginning and then neglected to notice how easy it is to solve for time. A more organized and clearly explained presentation would have removed this confusion. Regardless, your method is unnecessarily awkward compared to the simple one I just gave you.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Would you care to provide the source for this supposed internal collapse and explain why you believe it and what supposedly caused it?
If I recall correctly, it's discussed in the Popular Mechanics article. As to why I'd believe it, it's simply because I'm more inclined to believe the established, peer-reviewed academics at Popular Mechanics and what they say as opposed to anything that comes out of your mouth- especially in light of your recent replies.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Does this apply to both the north and south towers? Are you sure this isn't some pseudo-science that only you REAL SCIENTISTS that don't need quadratic equations are capable of BELIEVING?
Dude, you crack me up!

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Oh, I get it. Physics only works at established universities and this is really just about keeping people believing in AUTHORITY not actually explaining things to people so they can understand it for themselves. It is just some 300 year old Newtonian physics after all and we all have computers and can download torrents of physics books. ROFL
Precisely. This is exactly why Newton invented calculus- to make sure upstarts like you couldn't get involved and break our chokehold on worldly knowledge.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
There are a couple of skyscrapers that are built like pyramids though the one in Chicago is truncated. San Francisco always has to be more cool than Chicago.

Those towers are mainly designed to be aesthetically pleasing- the pyramid shape isn't meant for structural integrity. By your reasoning, most skyscrapers ought to have the first several floors completely blocked off by structural supports in order to hold up everything on top. So much for the lobby then- why even bother?

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Yeah that structural steel made it possible to eliminate thick walls on the lower levels of stone buildings to support all of that weight. But if you check Lon Waters' site you will find some columns had 20 times as much weight at the bottom as the top. So why don't you REAL SCIENTISTS want a table with the specs?
Did you bother writing to any of the scientists/engineers who have constructed mathematical models of the WTC collapse, and asked them where they got their data? No of course you didn't, but I did suggest that you do so.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
But he says he is a Physics Graduate Student. And says my model is garbage and you say he isn't insulting. At best he is a condescending dummy making a silly mistake. He is telling me how to compute t from vf but when I was writing FALL OF PHYSICS I didn't know t or vf and had to compute t before I could calculate vf. If anything I am inclined to doubt that he is a physics graduate student.
In light of what I posted above, I'm inclined to doubt you finished grade 10 physics.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
You expect me to "suffer fools gladly". No my personality can't handle it. I can barely do it in real space, I don't have to bother in cyberspace.
You asked me to suffer you, and I obliged. I don't see what grounds you have for complaint.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
He didn't insult you...he called your model garbage...there's a difference. He attacked your position, and you in turn attacked him personally. He offered a better way of calculating freefall, not knowing you didn't have all that data..and you burned him for it. He was just a visitor to our little thread...and you treated him like shit.
I guess that's what I get for assuming that a guy who wants to talk about Newtonian physics actually understands Newtonian physics. Didn't realize I had to fill in all the blanks for him. In any case, when debunking a layman's attempts at scientific argument, the amount they get pissed off is generally proportional to the amount their argument got chewed up.

16. CptBork, I don't understand all the letters and squiggles, but even I understand Newtons's Law, they are basic intuitive reasoning, put down in a written form.

I reload ammunition fro competition, and I had to learn BC, SD, Bullet Drop and Motion, which are fully encompassed in Newtons Laws.

I even had to learn about rotational forces, as to stability of a bullet in flight, proper length of projectile, matched to proper rotational spin speed to keep the projectile stable in flight, and on a predictable trajectory.

I also had to learn about energy transfer, for Hunting Bullets, how they dump energy into a target, and self destruct so I could choose the right jacket designs and core material to effectively transfer that energy to make clean kills.

17. Hell...I was just happy to have someone from the physics forum drop by. This thread could use some more squiggles.

I swear I need to learn LaTeX.

18. Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
Hell...I was just happy to have someone from the physics forum drop by. This thread could use some more squiggles.

I swear I need to learn LaTeX.
you need exactly ZERO math skills to answer the question of whether explosives was used to bring down WTC 1 and 2.

19. I have to admit the formulas didn't come out as pretty as I would have liked, but it's not really worth the time to do fancy formatting. I'm pretty sure Psikey knows what everything refers to and that's who it's really addressed for. Long story short: I checked the calculations, very straightforward introductory stuff, the numbers look good (I estimated them in my head, didn't punch them into a calculator so I could be wrong). Ultimately, the problem is that all the math in the world is useless if your model doesn't have any relation to the thing it's attempting to describe.

20. Your equation is just a different way of doing the same thing and you didn't mention that originally. Why not?

If I recall correctly, it's discussed in the Popular Mechanics article.
.
Oh yes, the Popular Mechanics article that says that steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 deg F but then fails to mention that the CORE TEMPERATURE of the steel has to reach that point and neither the words "conduct" nor "conduction" are in the entire article.

So we don't know how much steel was in the impact and fire zone much less how any of it heated enough to weaken sufficiently in less than 2 hours. Who cares about conduction?

Ultimately, the problem is that all the math in the world is useless if your model doesn't have any relation to the thing it's attempting to describe.
.
But you haven't even commented on the entire point of FALL OF PHYSICS. How changing the distribution of mass resulted in the conservation of momentum changing the collapse times even without any support material having to be bent or broken. So how are we supposed to buy these less than 18 second collapses without being told the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. Not to mention all of the other mass, plumbing, glass, computers, furniture, etc., etc.

Did you bother writing to any of the scientists/engineers who have constructed mathematical models of the WTC collapse, and asked them where they got their data? No of course you didn't, but I did suggest that you do so.
.
Sorry, Faulty Assumption! I have written to Purdue because of the simulation they have on the net. I got a response from Chris Hoffman who said to email Professor Sozen. But I had already emailed him and never got a response. Of course I have also emailed the NIST with similar results. Now why did you choose to make such an assumption. Is everybody supposed to believe Newtonian physics is so hard?

psik