Interesting 9/11 video

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Kittamaru, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, a model based on all the force coming from above and an intact structure below the collapse will never work.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    leopold, my advice at this point - leave psikeyhackr to wallow in his own paranoia... he won't listen to reason or fact, so no point conversing with him any longer.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
  8. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
  10. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    You have no idea what the BBC reported. Here is what they reported:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

    While they are talking about the collapse of building 7, building 7 is standing in the background.


    I'm not claiming this individual won his case or nor is that my point in/reason for sharing the video; by the same token, I'm not sure that the speaker in the original video was claiming/arguing victory in a legal sense but, whatever. The defendant exposed a previously little known yet very curious event in the BBC's coverage of 9/11. That is my point and purpose for sharing the video.
     
  11. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    FACT:

    A 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was constructed in 4 months in 1940 which duplicated the oscillating behavior of the real bridge.

    FACT:

    THIRTEEN YEARS have gone by since the special events of 9/11 and no one has built a model coming anywhere near duplicating the collapse of the north tower. In fact I am not aware of any engineering school even hinting that they would try.

    Listening to "reason" from people who pretend that the distribution of mass down 1000+ foot skyscrapers is of no importance. LOL

    The 9/11 Affair is so bizarre. There is a psychological problem involved alright. Computers can supposedly simulate millions of cubic miles of atmosphere and ocean to predict the climate a century in advance but we can't do a skyscraper collapse that took less than a minute. But it is all down to me being paranoid.

    ROFL

    psik
     
  12. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Actual Fact: You are incapable of providing a shred of evidence that is backed by actual science, and so you continue to spew your vitriol in the hopes of convincing those with less knowledge in the subject.

    If it's so fracking simple to build the model, do it your gorram self or stop crowing about it.

    Given that we know, from basic physics, that a scaled-down model won't react exactly the same without some serious metallurgical "magic", I suggest you stop crowing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2014
  13. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    Please, for the Lord's sake, remember you have claimed to be a Christian.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2014
  14. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Fine, fine... I fixed it
     
  15. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Photizo

    Yes, but what that model accurately portrayed was the bridge's AERODYNAMIC behavior, not it's ability to resist gravity. That bridge was built plenty strong enough to resist gravity and loads, but the oscillation caused by a steady 40 mph wind exceeded that strength. The models did not disintegrate as the full size bridge did, but they did oscillate in the wind like the real bridge did.

    Gravity does not scale, ants are much stronger than you are(proportionally)because they are smaller, not because their muscles are that much better than yours(they are actually LESS efficient). Any full sized building would crumple if Godzilla tried to pick them up, but it is almost impossible to build a small model of that building that would crumple the same way in your fingers. Or to be accurate(ish)your model must be in a centrifuge at multiple G(depending on scale), a serious complication with it's own effects.

    For the above reason, and others. NIST tested full size portions of the buildings, measured the responses and modeled the initiation of collapse on computers. You know, actual scientific research using the most modern methods. Their reports are as good as it's going to get. You should read them if the real story is what you want.

    Start here...


    http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017

    Nothing bizarre about that day. Everything we saw happen occurred because of physics. That's exactly what you can expect to happen when you fly big planes full of fuel into those types of buildings. And computers were used to model those events, you're just too...self-absorbed in your idiotic conspiracy theories to accept the facts. You're just a dead-ender Troother whose normal sites have ceased to exist as most Troothers grew up and moved out of their mom's basement.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
  17. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    You know, you didn't have to respond like you did...you have my respect. I thanked the Lord and asked His continued blessings on you. (I know, off topic...I'm done now)
     
  18. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,727
    I agree that a model of the collapse should have been made, even if it was a computer model.

    I was able to come pretty close with this design, made in a free physics program called Physion:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Even though it is a very simple model, the design is similar to the actual WTC1 and 2 design, (a tube-within-a-tube type arrangement).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here I am lifting up one of the floors so you can see the connections. Nothing is really connected, everything is simply held up by those little squares. In this program, that is the only way I have found to make connections which can come apart.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The model appears strong, but it is actually quite unstable. Sometimes it will collapse on its own, given enough time. Here I have added some loads throughout the model, and it is still standing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But if I inflict just a little damage to it, it collapses all the way down. These are four screenshots of the collapse superimposed. It doesn't stop there either. It collapses to a pile of rubble.

    I'm not claiming this proves anything about 9/11. It does show that it is possible to make a model which seems strong enough to stand on its own, but can also collapse on itself when damaged.
     
  19. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    Your model has 12 levels. My physical model has 33. Where is you data on the weight at each level? Are the lower levels stronger than the upper ones. Don't real skyscrapers have to be designed that way. My model has triple paper loops at the bottom and single loops at the top.

    I don't mind computer models but they are meaningless without the details on the data. Computer models do not really do physics. They simulate it. A physical model cannot escape real physics. So my paper loops MUST be strong enough to support the static load. The top washer was 1.4 oz and they got progressively heavier toward the bottom to 2.1 oz.

    So why are you showing us a virtual model without weight specification?

    The damage to the north tower was near the top and supposedly the upper portion fell onto and destroyed the intact lower portion.

    psik
     
  20. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
  21. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Already been explained to you, multiple times... it depends on the type of building design. In the case of the WTC, no, the lower levels were not any stronger. Each level distributed its weight to the supporting pillars - these pillars then distributed the weight into the ground. Each floor, literally, only held its own weight up. Adding the weight of another floor or two on top of it was sufficient to overload the connections to the supporting pillars and bam, collapse.

    I think this is the fifth or sixth time someone has explained this to you... quit trying to use argumentum ad ignorantiam.
     
  22. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,064
    I have not bee saying much about FLOORS, I keep saying LEVELS. By LEVEL I mean a height from the surface of one floor to the surface of the next but including the core and perimeter columns between those two planes.

    You are lying about the lower LEVELS not being stronger.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

    How much weight did the 1st LEVEL of the north tower have to support compared to what the 105th LEVEL had to support? You are spewing nonsense.

    The bottom 5 paper loops in the stack of my model had to be stronger then those at the top otherwise they would have been crushed.

    psik
     
  23. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    So you attest a difference between floors and levels now in order to get your own way... okay, whatever floats your boat (or, in this case, sinks your ship).

    How much more weight did the bottom of the core columns have to support than the top? I dunno - one could most likely figure this out using math (find the weight of the building compared to the weight of each floor, remove the weight per floor to determine the overall weight of supporting structure, find the radius of the columns at the bottom vs at the top to determine the volume of the pyramid/cylinder, and work from there using the known weights of the materials they were comprised of against their size)
     

Share This Page