.
So who is the obvious LIAR now?
psik
So do you accept the conclusions of the paper, provided that Dr Steven Jones is not a lying fraud, Professor Niels Harrit is not a liar, Dr Jeffrey Farrer is not a liar, Kevin Ryan is not a liar, Dr Frank Legge is not a liar, Daniel Farnsworth is not a liar, Gregg Roberts is not a liar, James Gourley is not a liar, Bradley Larsen is not a liar, and the five people who have provided samples and depositions are not liars and frauds, and the two other independent scientists who studied the dust and confirmed Doctor Jones findings from samples independent of Doctor Jones samples are also not liars.
...so as long as all these people are not all complete unadulterated liars, you accept the papers conclusions?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
edit - the chain of custody is documented, we've been over it on another thread. it is obvious you are now looking for strawmen to avoid addressing the paper and its conclusions.
.You are--obviously. We've established that beyond dispute.
.
You accused me of not glancing at the NCSTAR1 report but I have already provided more information about it than you have. Functioning outside of reality seems to be your standard operating procedure.
So have you found the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels yet?
How can the engineers you worship have explained what happened without that data?
You don't need to understand things for yourself. You just need an AUTHORITY to worship and tell you what to think. You presume everyone else does.
So how do we get the distribution of steel without the perimeter column info?
psik
.Most of us have figured out that you don't know what you're talking about. Explain what you mean by the "distribution" of the steel. Obviously, everyone understands that the NIST reports show the location of EVERY steel column, perimeter and core, in the towers. Tell us why the weights of the perimeter wall panels mean something to you, although no real engineers find any significance.
.
Who is this "most of us" that you presume to speak for?
The NCSTAR1 report says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor, which was 130 feet below the impact point, when the plane hit the building. There is a graph of the building's oscillation for four minutes after impact. Shaking a 400,000 ton building takes a lot of energy, it could only come from the kinetic energy of the plane. So some of the kinetic energy shook the building and some did structural damage.
So an accurate estimate of the structural damage cannot be made without knowing what went into building motion. That cannot be computed without distribution of mass and steel behaves differently from concrete. It is the steel that provides the springiness of the building but steel and concrete provide inertia. That is what this video is about:
psik
So let's say I wave a magic wand and produce these figures. Now, how do you accurately determine how much of the kinetic energy of the plane was received by the structural components of the building and how much just blew on through the backside? There's no way to know accurately. So having accurate steel and concrete measurements are moot. You could only guess with rough numbers about how much energy was absorbed by the building, so the numbers you been crying about in every post for all these months aren't really useful.
I think I understand what you saying. The plane hit the building and some of it's kinetic energy went in to damaging it, and some of it was absorbed by the elasticity of the building, causing it to sway. You want to know exactly how much the building weighed so you can determine how much of the energy didn't go to damaging the building but was absorbed ..right? Correct me if I'm wrong. The only problem, there's no way to accurately determine the amount of energy the structural components of the building actually experienced. Some of the energy was absorbed by non-structural components..some of it blew completely through the building and out the back. How do you determine the total amount of energy to use with your accurate mass figures?
You probably don't realize it but the non-structural components would not absorb energy that was then unfelt by the structure. There is something called a load path that you are failing to consider. The only part of the aircraft energy that would not be in the load path of the building, after the impact, was whatever was left when some parts exited the building. Since we know how far and from what height these remaining parts fell we can determine their remaining energies. Since we know the weight and velocity of the aircraft the total amount of energy brought into the building by the aircraft can be determined.
Not all of the energy would be involved in generating motion of the building as some would have been dissipated as heat and sound at impact. However, these can be estimated and are small fractions of the amount that would actually influence the motion of the building.
OK...I'm not a physicist nor a structural engineer, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no way to tell how much of the total energy of the plane was transfered to the building, and how much went to other things....like what you mentioned, heat dissapation, and bits and pieces hitting desks and bookcases...and other bits just blasting all the way through. You can roughly estimate the amount of energy, but a specific number would be impossible to find, as we don't really know what went on in the inside of the structure.
Without a really accurate calculation of the energy applied to the building, the accurate numbers for steel and concrete distibution that Psi has been repeatedly asking for isn't really relevant. If only one half of the formula has accurate numbers, and the other half is just an estimate, then the product of the equation will not be accurate.
Most of us have figured out that you don't know what you're talking about. Explain what you mean by the "distribution" of the steel. Obviously, everyone understands that the NIST reports show the location of EVERY steel column, perimeter and core, in the towers. Tell us why the weights of the perimeter wall panels mean something to you, although no real engineers find any significance.
.Now, how do you accurately determine how much of the kinetic energy of the plane was received by the structural components of the building and how much just blew on through the backside? There's no way to know accurately.
.Without a really accurate calculation of the energy applied to the building, the accurate numbers for steel and concrete distibution that Psi has been repeatedly asking for isn't really relevant. If only one half of the formula has accurate numbers, and the other half is just an estimate, then the product of the equation will not be accurate.
What Psikeyhackr is saying is that if we know the mass distribution and the effect on building motion by the impact we can calculate that energy dissipation and deduct it from that of the aircraft to find the amount of energy which went into actual damage.
manipulating data to fit a scenario is not part of an investigation, unless you a re a railroader. to be honest afaiac szamboti has zero credibility. now he strikes me as a fascist tyrant.
This comment isn't even worthy of a reply other than to say it is a joke with no basis in reality.
you see the problem is that we are looking at this from a physical evidence standpoint. we look at the evidence and draw a conclusion based of of the actual (real) evidence. then we have a few here who are more abstract in their thought processes and much more forgiving of where the real evidence is pointing.