WTC Collapses

[psikeyhackr]

I did download it. But downloading something and reading the whole thing are different things :-p. I actually now vaguely remember this. I don't see how it would take away from my arguments, but for that I guess I'd have to take a look at what shaman_ has to say.

.
I never, and would never, suggest that anyone read the whole thing. I would consider it mostly a waste of time. It is some of the stuff that is not there which is most interesting about that report.

I searched on "center of mass" and "center of gravity" regarding the tilted top portion of the south tower. They don't mention that. Like how could they not?

I analyze the problem then search for information relating to the solution of the problem I probably found the workstation business while searching for information related to the temperatures of the fires.

The link to it on the NIST page I found for NCSTAR 1-5 is dead.

.
All my links went dead a while back, apparently they rearranged their website. It's still out there but you'll have to find the new url. I've got them in a text file somewhere.

psik

[(Q)]

Hey Q baby, how about answering the questions I posed to you on your "dynamic buckling" diatribe against Gordon Ross' work. Can't you defend what you say, or if you were wrong to admit it?

Tony, please feel free to think it diatribe or whatever you want. It's simply not worth tossing scraps to the bottom feeders of the world.

[(Q)]

I'll just refrain from replying further.

Please do just that. Thanks.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, please feel free to think it diatribe or whatever you want. It's simply not worth tossing scraps to the bottom feeders of the world.

Q, it seems the only thing you have is big gonads in calling others bottom feeders. You apparently have no answers and your comments will now be taken for the horseshit they are. You did answer in one way. I for one certainly will not spend any time answering any of your nonsense from here on out.

[psikeyhackr]

It's bad enough we have to put up with spineless little weasels like yourself who spread their crap around like manure, but now you're asking for acknowledgment and respect?

.
Who wants the respect of people that can't do high school physics?

Oh, you don't pay enough attention to notice that the NIST doesn't even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. Now after SEVEN YEARS of painting yourselves into a corner it would be pretty embarassing to admit you didn't check the obviously important data.

Can you build a 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out how much steel to put on every level? So why don't we have it? How much of the planes' kinetic energy went into shaking the buildings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

[(Q)]

Q, it seems the only thing you have is big gonads in calling others bottom feeders.

If you'd grow a pair, maybe you'd come up from the bottom.

[scott3x]

Scott, all of the pdf files come up for me. NCSTAR 1-5C is there and it is still 130 pages and comes up fine.

Because you said this, I decided to check it out again- and this time it downloaded fine. Go figure :-p. In any case, I'm not going to go through the whole thing just to see if shaman_ is right. If he can't excerpt the relevant portion, his argument deserves to be dismissed in my view.

[scott3x]

Q... I for one certainly will not spend any time answering any of your nonsense from here on out.

That is the solution I believe. People like Q just want to drag us down to their level. As psikeyhackr says in his Mass Interaction Test back video that he posted back in 2007, "It has been 6 years since 9/11 and arguments rage on the internet which regularly degenerate into name calling and sound bites...". You can tack another year and a bit onto that statement and it'd work just as well today.

I for one am tired of all these insults that the moderators don't seem to want to deal with. The only solution left at that point is to simply ignore these insult laden posts.

[leopold]

The only solution left at that point is to simply ignore these insult laden posts.

much like you dismiss the fact that no bomb material has ever been found at ground zero?
don't even try the the "people were barred from entering ground zero" ruse.
within hours of the collapse people from all over the US started arriving at ground zero. the relief effort AND the cleanup was ENTIRELY civilian directed.
yes, the military was there, but their efforts went into dissuading gawkers and souvenir hunters.

i got the above tidbit from a person that was actually there. (of course he was a plant by the government though huh?

[shaman_]

The models do nothing of the sort. I've made that clear to you time and again and yet you refuse to listen that what they're using in them is cartoon physics. Ask Tony, Headspin or psikey. I believe they'll all back me up here.

Well that’s all the evidence I need…

You always sidestep the following from Steven Jones, but your dodges don't change the veracity

So you ignore entire posts to tell me I’m dodging your 'point'. ...

of the excerpt from Steven Jones peer reviewed paper,

The only review that paper passed was from other deluded and inadequately qualified conspiracy theorists.

the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.

You ramble on about “cartoon physics” (it is clear that you don’t know a thing about physics) yet did you read that line?

I think Steven Jones actually gives the model more credit then it's due here- after all, they don't even simulate the collapse; they only get to 'poised to collapse'.

The simulation went to the point where collapse was imminent. The point was to find out why the collapse occurred. It was done so they could learn and potentially save lives. Even if they could accurately model the global collapse what would be achieved?

You wouldn't trust the results anyway. So if they produced a model of the WTC collapse next year would you be convinced then? Of course not. Your hollow complaints are just noise.

[scott3x]

the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.

You ramble on about “cartoon physics” (it is clear that you don’t know a thing about physics)

I know a little; I've certainly not seen any evidence that you know much yourself. psikey knows more then both of us but I don't see you praising him. Steven Jones was a physics professor at a university and I believe he could easily win a physics argument on 9/11 against Bentheman. I believe, however, that he might have explained what NIST is referring to by the 'physical reality' bit a bit more. I will explain it more in this post.

yet did you read that line?

Yes, I read that line. Apparently you didn't understand it. I'll try to explain it better. This time, however, I will quote what he said -before- the excerpt I quoted. He had quoted what I believe was a previous passage from NIST, also on page 142:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

After this, Steven Jones details what NIST did exactly in order to get the building 'poised for collapse' it "adjusted" the pulling forces:

Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted… (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

Almost 40 pages later, NIST brings up the subject again, apparently believing that we've now swallowed their 'adjustments' and proceeds to detail what happens with such cartoon physics adjustments:

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

Steven Jones then rightfully derides their faulty methods:

How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses — until one gets the desired result [the "reality" is that the building collapsed- NIST didn't attempt to simulate the actual collapse of the twin towers; it only got things to 'poised for collapse'- to achieve this they employed the cartoon physics I was referring to and which Steven Jones is trying to explain; admittedly it's not easy to do]. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently — one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit — even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)

[scott3x]

You always sidestep the following from Steven Jones, but your dodges don't change the veracity

So you ignore entire posts to tell me I’m dodging your 'point'.

shaman_, if -anyone- could be said to generally respond to your posts, I think that candidate would be me- I frequently do so even if I have to be responding to posts a few hundred posts back because I simply can't respond to so many points so fast. Personally I believe that you've skipped more of my points and posts that I've skipped yours. But that's fine with me. While I sometimes make a show about repeating things, I generally bring it up not so much to finger wag but to point out that what you call spam I call trying to impress upon you points that I've been trying to impress upon you for a while. I acknowledge that the issues are complex, however, and some issues are not easily explained; I think this may well be especially so if you have a mindset which is always looking for a way to square the evidence with the official story.

I think that perhaps your weakest defense is in regards to things such as the evidence for molten metal and thermate. Nevertheless, I've found that as a general rule, the best thing to do is to bring up multiple subjects as I think many have weaknesses.

Honestly, at times I simply get tired of it all. You see things a certain way and I begin to despair that you'll ever see things the way I do. I haven't given up yet though and points such as the molten metal and the thermate are perhaps the points wherein I think that progress has actually been made.

[shaman_]

shaman_, if -anyone- could be said to generally respond to your posts, I think that candidate would be me- I frequently do so even if I have to be responding to posts a few hundred posts back because I simply can't respond to so many points so fast. Personally I believe that you've skipped more of my points and posts that I've skipped yours. But that's fine with me.

Scott, every time I have mentioned the workstation tests you have changed the subject and rambled on about computer simulations. Then if I make an issue of it you accuse me of dodging your points!

While I sometimes make a show about repeating things, I generally bring it up not so much to finger wag but to point out that what you call spam I call trying to impress upon you points that I've been trying to impress upon you for a while. I acknowledge that the issues are complex, however, and some issues are not easily explained; I think this may well be especially so if you have a mindset which is always looking for a way to square the evidence with the official story.

I think that perhaps your weakest defense is in regards to things such as the evidence for molten metal

There was molten metal. Truthers seem to think that molten metal must me molten steel.

and thermate.

So it is thermate this week? Is that the explosive one?

Nevertheless, I've found that as a general rule, the best thing to do is to bring up multiple subjects as I think many have weaknesses.

There are many dodgy claims around the 911 conspiracy. Many will be impressed by the sheer number of these theories. However quantity is not the same as quality. But it gives you the ability to jump from one to the other as each claim is shot down. When things appear bleak for the truther you then jump to WTC7 and the pentagon is always a backup after that. Eventually we go back to the start again and while you may even be reasonable enough to acknowledge that some of the claims may not be compelling you are still convinced that there must be a conspiracy because there are lots of claims, a physics professor is involved and they even have websites!

Honestly, at times I simply get tired of it all. You see things a certain way and I begin to despair that you'll ever see things the way I do. I haven't given up yet though and points such as the molten metal and the thermate are perhaps the points wherein I think that progress has actually been made.

Not with me.

For me, these threads have only reinforced how poor the evidence for a controlled demolition is.

[psikeyhackr]

@Tony & Scott3x

Do either of you guys know where to find the weight of a floor slab with its pans and trusses?

psik

[Tony Szamboti]

@Tony & Scott3x

Do either of you guys know where to find the weight of a floor slab with its pans and trusses?

psik

We know the area of the floors, the thickness and density of the lightweight concrete, the size and amount of rebar in the concrete, the gage and corrugation height of the steel floor pans, and the material and construction of and the spacing of the floor trusses.

From this information one can calculate the weight. Didn't Gregory Urich do this already?

If not I would say it would be a good project for you psik. If you need any help let me know.

[Uno Hoo]

We know the area of the floors, the thickness and density of the lightweight concrete, the size and amount of rebar in the concrete, the gage and corrugation height of the steel floor pans, and the material and construction of and the spacing of the floor trusses.

From this information one can calculate the weight. Didn't Gregory Urich do this already?

If not I would say it would be a good project for you psik. If you need any help let me know.

Tony nailed it. UH has had a little experience calculating weight of construction material when the parameters are known, too.

But don't let me know. Tony is generous with his time and energy but I am stingy.

[Uno Hoo]

General response to this thread: I am not taking a side on the conspiracy-or-not thing. Not yet. I have only very recently had my curiosity piqued re this issue. I have far too little data to form a strong opinion one way or the other. Not yet.

However, some things are seeming to fail to add up.

For the moment, i am most, though certainly not only, perplexed by the paucity of aircraft parts found, positively identified, and publicized, in all of the crash sites.

At the Pentagon site, especially, there should have been much, much, more a collection of aircraft parts which should not have been magically vaporized. While a jetliner is admittedly a kind of a thick skinned blimp engineered to have needed structural integrity but not much more, there are, nonetheless many structural parts not subject to facile disintegration. The skin might be imagined to be turned into confetti by a 100s MPH impact. But fuselage spines and longerons, wing spars, very solid landing gear parts, massive engine parts, tungsten control surface counterweights, and such like, should have all survived and should have all been found, identified, and publicized.

If I did not have bad luck, i would have no luck at all, goes the old joke. Well, my luck was that on the very day that i began to be seriously perplexed about the lack of satisfying pentagon information, the pentagon thread was locked by the staff's unlimited and perfect wisdom.

Thanks to you, Scott3x, for your energy and integrity in conducting these threads. I may, or, may not, share your particular opinions and conclusions. But I do appreciate your energy in helping us have a venue in which to explore the possibilities and reach our own decisions.

[psikeyhackr]

We know the area of the floors, the thickness and density of the lightweight concrete, the size and amount of rebar in the concrete, the gage and corrugation height of the steel floor pans, and the material and construction of and the spacing of the floor trusses.

From this information one can calculate the weight. Didn't Gregory Urich do this already?

If not I would say it would be a good project for you psik. If you need any help let me know.

.
It is certainly curious how they can do furnace tests on full scale 35 foot sections of floor slabs with trusses in NCSTAR1-6 and never mention how much it weighs.

psik

[John99]

Thanks to you, Scott3x, for your energy and integrity in conducting these threads. I may, or, may not, share your particular opinions and conclusions. But I do appreciate your energy in helping us have a venue in which to explore the possibilities and reach our own decisions.

There are millions of 'woo-woo sites'. That and porn.

I am sure you have seen your fair share of them.

[scott3x]

@Tony & Scott3x

Do either of you guys know where to find the weight of a floor slab with its pans and trusses?

psik

I don't, but Tony apparently has shown how you can get them...