Interesting 9/11 video

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

  1. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    My hypothesis for why I am wrong? Why would I have such a hypothesis?

    If you know how they think then why don't (you) they expect steel and concrete distributions to be public information? Is it that they like science and engineering to be kept mysterious and complicated? How can any competent engineer not admit that planned obsolescence is standard procedure in automobiles? But then that creates jobs for engineers.

    It is not about being wrong or right it is about enough evidence being provided to indicate something is extremely probable or improbable.

    I think it is extremely improbable that the top 15% of a skyscraper that stood for 20+ years could fall straight down and destroy the rest in 25 seconds. I expect engineers to admit that the distributions of steel and concrete down a skyscraper would have to have something to do with whether or not it is possible. It is not just "collapse" or not, it is the speed in which it could happen because the Conservation of Momentum would have something to do with it.

    But after 13 years the engineers have a problem. Because if it could not happen then they should have figured it out and explained it long ago. So now they have a vested in giving the impression that it could happen. But if it could happen they should explain that with complete information also. So now we get lots of nothing.

    psik
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    All you are doing is repeating the point I was making.

    A flame that didn't lose heat to its environment could not heat and weaken steel. So why should we give a damn about it in relation to 9/11?

    So the temperature you came up with is ridiculous.

    But thanks for getting me to find the Wiki nonsense. I have let other people know about it.

    psik
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    5,051
    I think you misread. The hypothesis I'm referring to is an hypothesis for why colleges are not "all over this". That's been my main focus here: you are claiming that there are big questions that need to be answered, but most people - particularly the people who you most want to address them - apparently do not agree. So I want to know if you've considered why the very people who you think should care about this appear not to.

    It does seem like you do have an hypothesis:
    So you hypothesize that a vast conspiracy involving every engineering student (even those who were 8 years old at the time of the attack) and practicing engineer in in the United States (the world?) is responsible for the apparent lack of interest? That's just plain nuts. You should consider the possibility that the face-value explanation really could be the right one because such a conspiracy really isn't possible.


    I am an engineer working in the construction industry (I do mechanical engineering but have dabbled in other disciplines) and while I don't really see much value in any of this, I will still comment on this:
    So, yes, obviously you already know that your objection is invalid since you gave the correct answer as to why right after saying it. But the background is interesting.

    One Meridian Plaza was a 38 storey hi-rise in Philadelphia that was built in 1972 and was destroyed - but not felled - by a fire in 1991. At the time it was the 3rd tallest destroyed building in the world and the only one destroyed by fire. It is the only close relative to the WTC collapses.

    Due in large part to this fire, all hi-rise buildings have automatic sprinklers today and the WTC did in 2001. The fire in One Meridian started on the 22nd floor, but only one floor, the 30th, had sprinklers (installed by a tenant). Ten sprinklers on that floor stopped the fire and it burned itself out. Firefighters had been recalled due to fears that it would collapse. Later, it was determined:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza#Replacement

    Suffice to say, the obliteration of much of the contents of the floors that were impacted by the planes left the WTC sprinkler systems compromised.

    Lessons learned?

    1. Major fires in hi-rise buildings are very rare and even more rare today because pretty much all major hi-rises have sprinklers. So a fire like the One Meridian fire is all-but impossible today. And an argument from a 9/11 "truther" that 'gee, it's never happened before' is clearly both wrong and irrelevant.

    2. Hi-rise buidings are made mostly of steel and concrete, which don't burn, yet the contents of the office building were able to cause irreparable structural damage to the building. All arguments about the heat of a jet-fuel fire are red herring distractions: even a wood/paper fire is enough to structurally damage a building and whatever the temperature in the WTC, suffice to say, it was hotter than in One Meridian.

    For the next part of your post:
    As bizarre as it is to lump together in one sentence two completely different issues, this one is silly enough on its own that I'm wondering if you stuck them together for a strength-in-numbers type of game.

    Anyway, this is an obvious one: when a column is compressed vertically so it bows horizontally and then snaps, all of the released elastic energy is released horizontally. You can try this with a brittle object (be careful!) such as a stick or some types of CDs. When you compress it vertically and it snaps, shards of it will shoot across the room.

    Beyond that, of course, is simple probability: there is a lot of random motion in a collapsing building and a certain fraction of it is going to push objects horizontally. I'm sure there is a probability function for the % of mass of the building that falls in certain radii from it, but when the building contains thousands of tons of material, it isn't a stretch for some of that random motion to throw some tiny % of material a few hundred feet. Especially considering that for an object fired sideways from 600 feet up, it takes about 6 seconds to reach the ground, which means it only needs an initial speed of 50 ft/sec to reach a distance of 300 feet. That's pretty slow for the energies involved.

    Again: neither of these issues should seem peculiar to an engineer, so they both fit my "not interested" hypothesis. Few engineers would be interested in proving something so obvious and mundane. But again: what's your alternate hypothesis for the apparent lack of interest among engineers?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Our schools produce conformists and non-conformists get punished. It also inculcates this worship of authority.

    I had a nun tell me, "You will get into a good high school but you won't do well."

    She was mad at me because I refused to be a patrol boy even though the school said it was voluntary. I thought I was going to have to fight with the bitch and end up getting kicked out of school. She was on my back about that for two weeks.

    I had decided I was an agnostic at 12. But I got into a good high school and got straight D's in religion my freshman year along with my straight A's in math. So was she right or wrong?

    My point is that not matter what the truth of 9/11 is it should be proven without ambiguity. That is why I call it the 9/11 Affair. Like the Galileo Affair in reverse. We must now keep lots of people ignorant of middle school physics to believe the Official Story.

    If the Official Story is true then why shouldn't it be easy for a high priced engineering school to do a good model that can collapse completely? Why people do what they do is about psychology. Psychology is irrelevant to physics. If anything the psychologists should be wondering why the physicists don't do a model of 9/11. They should know about the Pavlov's dog experiment.

    I think if I believed in the north tower collapse I would expect physicists to demonstrate it experimentally anyway. To claim something is true but not being willing to give unequivocal evidence when people went off to war over this is pompous arrogance. But maybe that just goes with lying.

    But then engineering institutions get contracts and certification from the government, and who knows how many Old Boy Networks connect them.

    So it comes down to everyone understanding the grade school physics for themselves. But that might tend to undermine the educational institutions anyway. Scylla and Charybdis?

    psik
     
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    So you are going to choose to cherry-pick the information you see before you and only take that which appears to support your argument and ignore the rest...

    how very typical of a truther... when you can't win with facts, you fight with lies and omission...
     
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    ... really?

    Okay... prove to me that you, as a person, exist... and that you are not, in fact, someone else simply using a secondary account.

    Prove to me that gravity works via the attraction of two masses, and not because some invisible force is actually PUSHING against us as opposed to Gravity PULLING on us.

    Do you see the problem with your desire for things to be proven without ambiguity? It's not possible... it is physically impossible a large portion of the time, because it is limited by our own perception. Thus, we can "prove" things to what is considered "the point of reasonable doubt"... this is a part of why logical people don't like truthers; instead of going "to the point of reasonable doubt" or "beyond a reasonable doubt", they insist on going "reductio ad absurdum"
     
  10. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Are you saying people did or did not go off to war over whether or not I exist.

    I am not interested in some abstract pseudo-intellectual bullsh!t.

    psik
     
  11. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Is designing skyscrapers based on cherry-picking information? You think they can just guess the amount of steel to put on each level to support all of the weight above.

    Do you think adiabatic fires could weaken that amount of steel on the 94th level of the north tower?

    As far as I am concerned you are the one cherry-picking bullsh!t and defending some people right to not explain things that the US has gone to war about.

    So all you have is name calling but I always regarded science as a Truth Movement. It is so curious that we can't get truth about steel and concrete distributions down skyscrapers when the Empire State Building was 70 years old on 9/11.

    Has Grumpy reported the NIST's specs on the total for the concrete yet?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    He is right about somebody lying.

    psik
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Isnt this just trolling at tbis point?
     
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Wow. Ok, well, note that religion is by definition dogma, but science education is by definition anti-dogma. Science and engineering students are required to investigate new things to extend the knowledgebase of their fields.

    But anyway, yeah, I guess your hypothesis really is that there is a vast conspiracy, incorporating all engineers across the globe, to suppress the investigationof reasonable questions. I wonder if you recognize just how crazy that sounds?

    I suppose you must think that I'm a part of this conspiracy? I tell you that I believe that the questions you are asking are poor/worthless questions; do you think I'm lying and that I secretly believe you are on to something but I want to protect the status quo instead? Or do you think that my indoctrination into the engineering dogma prevents me from responding to such questions (despite the fact that I received my degree prior to 9/11!)?

    Again: if engineers rigidly adhered to dogma either consciously or unconsciously, all of the spectacular technological advances of the 20th+21st century could not have been possible.
    That's laughably wrong. Much of this is actual engineering, but what middle school physics there is, you've shown a pretty remarkable lack of understanding of it. There is nothing here that is outside of what should be expected.
    Well, psychologists do study the issue, but they aren't studying the phsyicsists, they are studying the guys like you, trying to understand guys like you get hooked-on conspiracy theory crap. And since the science/engineering of this is pretty mundane, that is the more interesting issue to me too.
    Right: you try to avoid acknowledging it so you don't have to actually substantiate an alternate theory, but we of course can see through your crap and recognize that you don't actually believe the standard story. You believe something else happened. What is it that you believe happened?
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nope.
    Yes, easily.
    No wonder mainstream science wants nothing to do with the Truthers.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there you go AGAIN!!
    this is an assumption psiky, AND IT'S WRONG ! !
    period.

    edit:
    your assumption of an intact structure below the collapse is also wrong.
    this is why you don't want to acknowledge the role these butt joints played in the collapse.
     
  16. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Yeah, the lobby had lots of cosmetic damage caught on video and no one could explain it.

    So it should not be difficult to build a physical model to demonstrate the fact. I am not even insisting on scale or that it be tube-in-tube. Just something that can support its own weight with the mass either evenly distributed or bottom heavy.

    Why should that be so hard? The engineering school I attended now charges $20,000 per semester. Do you suppose they can afford it?

    13 years without a demonstration is just so peculiar about something so many people CLAIM is obvious. :yawn:

    psik
     
  17. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Oh really!?

    But adiabatic is defined as not giving up heat to its surroundings. So explain how it could heat anything else.

    psik
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    An adiabatic FIRE is a fire whose temperature is the result of complete combustion. There are two types - constant volume and constant pressure. Thus discussing an adiabatic FIRE is to discuss the temperature at which a given fire burns.

    But I am guessing you don't want to discuss that, since it has to do with science.
     
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    No, but when you willfully ignore other far more important information, it is cherry picking.

    I do not think an adiabatic open-air fire can EXIST in the real world - physics dictates it WILL transfer its heat into a medium - if nothing else, the air around it.

    So, in other words, you cannot actually defend your position, so you are going to simply ignore the counter points.

    In other words, you cannot or will not understand the point of that post... and thus, are simply trolling... again...
     
  20. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    I built physical models to defend my positions. Even a physical model designed by me doesn't give a damn about what I say. Or anybody else. So where is a physical model from anyone that can completely collapse?

    My models are attacked with nothing but TALK. You can't even come up with an official source specifying the amount of concrete in the towers since 9/11 and then accuse me of cherry-picking.

    Don't skyscrapers have to hold up their own weight? So if the steel and concrete distributions can't be specified then 9/11 is a scientific farce. How much steel was on each level that we know had fires? It was about 34 tons of fuel in each plane. The floor pans and trusses in one floor assembly were about 125 tons. But what was in the core and on the perimeter. That was not the same on every LEVEL. Notice I said level, not floor.

    Are you accusing me of cherry-picking what I don't know when you don't know it either?

    psik
     
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Now you are simply repeating yourself... you've been told REPEATEDLY why your "physical model" was inaccurate... and you choose to ignore it.

    *sigh* You are so hung up on this...
    http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

    200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
    425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex

    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml
    Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (500,000 tons). The interior design of the World Trade Center contains 240 vertical steel columns, which were called the Vierendeel trusses. These steel columns maintained the tower's structure and helped to create an extremely "light"building.

    Eric Chen -- 2004

    Yes - but this is different than expecting each floor to hold the weight of the floors above it. Again, the connections for each level were designed to hold the weight of the individual level with a margin of safety... not the weight of SEVERAL levels falling upon it. WHY is this so hard for you to grasp? Is it, perhaps, because understanding this simple fact would obliterate your entire argument?

    False, as shown above.

    No, I am accusing you of blatant intellectual dishonesty, total disregard for scientific fact and due process, and generally being unwilling to see the facts before you because they conflict with this nice little conspiracy you believe in.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i am not a degreed engineer, so i can't tell you about these things.
    it doesn't take a genius though to understand how these buildings fell apart the way they did, especially since we both know about the butt joints.
    once the outer supports for the floors broke loose, well the floors had nowhere to go but down.
    which in turn dislodged butt joints in advance of the collapse, while also misaligning the core columns.
    all of this taken together adds up to one massive collapse.
    in other words, it WASN'T the top portion smashing down, but the act of it caused a compromised structure in advance of the collapse.
    the building essentially "ate itself up".
    i have no idea why not.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    hey psiky,
    have you thought of all the angles?
    explored all the causes?
    i though of the following as soon as i made my last post.
    resonance.
    what if the rumblings of the collapse matched that of the building itself?
    hmmmmm?
     

Share This Page