WTC Collapses

[MacGyver1968]

Actually psi, I wasn't capable of following your maths. That's why I asked you to explain it. I'm not trying to fuck with your head. (at least not now ) I 'm asking you to clarify your position. But you didn't want to, and only posted a link to a link of a different thread on a different board. I just thought it was funny that the people on that board were just as annoyed with your off-topic spamming of your pet topic just as much as we are.

Now I understand why you were banned from at least one of the boards...your nothing but a troll with nothing to offer. I asked you a question about the heating of a rod, and you dodged the question by asking me for the size of the rod. I gave you the size, and you ignore the response and switched topics again...and start tossing out insults. I can take the insults...just not the stupidity.

I hope they ban you here.

 

[shaman_]

, you seem to have forgotten to answer this question which was in the same post as all the other questions you replied to above

Wow you ignored my entire post to tell me I didn’t have a good enough response to just one point in yours.

Please provide a mechanism to have the structure collapse without a deceleration of the upper block, because there isn't one. This fact will become very public very soon.

I’m holding my breath.

It is now public. Did you watch David Chandler's new video on the collapse of the North tower? If not it is here http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4 and only about 3 minutes long.

By the way, asking for another example of a building having a 767 smash into it and implying it had to be the cause of collapse is a Non sequitur.

This is nonsense. You and the truthers refuse to accept all the examples of fires causing steel structures to collapse. You demand examples of this exact event happening before. It hasn’t, therefore you seem to think that this implies it shouldn’t have happened....... therefore conspiracy!!!!

It is completely flawed reasoning. There were a lot of firsts on 9/11.

 

[scott3x]

Underwriter Laboratories/NIST's steel tests much harsher then reality of the actual 9/11 office fires and loads on the steel, and yet the steel still didn't fail, Round 2

Regardless of the amount of fireproofing on them, they sagged a bit but they definitely didn't collapse- and this in conditions that were definitely harsher then the actual WTC fires could have gotten.

What are you basing this on? Your imagination? Where are the details that make this clear?

I'm basing it on the quote that I've quoted so many times. Once again, with the relevant parts highlighted this time:
In fact, UL did test floor assemblies in 1970, that were “similar” to those used in the WTC towers, but this fact has not been repeated by NIST since their progress report of May 2003.[7] The results of those early tests were interesting, considering that they showed the “floor assembly sagged 3 inches... at 120 minutes”, which correlates with the August 2004 floor tests done by UL as part of the NIST investigation. Of course, 120 minutes is much longer than the fire times in the failure zones of either tower.

There are several other facts about UL’s August 2004 floor model tests, performed as part of the NIST WTC investigation, that should be emphasized. These facts show that, even despite designing these tests in an intentionally deceptive way, the floor models still supported their loads in the furnace. Not only did UL and NIST add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.

As a sidenote, I actually took a look at NCSTAR 1-6A, but while Figure A-60 was mentioned, it said it was in Apendix A, and I couldn't find that.

And precisely what is the source of this stuff you keep repeatedly posting??

Kevin Ryan's peer reviewed paper, The short reign of Ryan Mackey, page 7. I do admit that I don't know where to find Apendix A, however- while NIST's NCSTAR 1-6A does mention it, it doesn't seem to actually -be- in NIST's NCSTAR 1-6A.

 

[MacGyver1968]

FYI, Scott..."nesting quotes" like that make it really hard to read your post....especially when viewed on a mobile. Just a heads up.

 

[scott3x]

Dawkins is a strong anti-creationist though. And sciforums doesn't exactly lend itself to them either. In all honesty, I think it's for this very reason that people like me, you and psikeyhackr can go on about 9/11 as an inside job in forums like this; because there is enough respect for theories that show they have scientific evidence.

You can go on about 9/11 in forums like this because most people here believe in free speech and open debate. If your points were respected for their scientific merit, they wouldn't be relegated to the pseudoscience section.

Alright, fair enough. I would like to point out, however, that it only takes a few individuals to decide that the points of me, Tony, Headspin and psikey don't have scientific merit in order for it to be relegated to the pseudoscience section- the admins/moderators. As a general rule, those same individuals have taken little interest in actually looking at the points in question, so it's easy to see why.

 

[scott3x]

FYI, Scott..."nesting quotes" like that make it really hard to read your post....especially when viewed on a mobile. Just a heads up.

I think that some of my posts are best read on a full blown computer- I have previously used methods that don't nest posts so much, but I've found them to sometimes be fairly messy. However, if I respond to you on something, I will take the idea of not nesting so much into consideration.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Thanks, man..not trying to be a netiquette nanny..just nesting is generally frowned on, as it burns extra bandwidth by posting redundant, unnecessary data...and it's hard to read.

 

[Read-Only]

Alright, fair enough. I would like to point out, however, that it only takes a few individuals to decide that the points of me, Tony, Headspin and psikey don't have scientific merit in order for it to be relegated to the pseudoscience section- the admins/moderators. As a general rule, those same individuals have taken little interest in actually looking at the points in question, so it's easy to see why.

"A few individuals??" Don't make me laugh so hard!!! The VAST number of intelligent people here AND practically all of the professional scientific community KNOW all your junk is nothing but pseudoscience and pure garbage!!!:bugeye:

Just because you've managed to find a few cranks who CLAIM to be professionals (Tony, etc.) does NOT mean that they are - and neither does it mean their asinine claims can stand up against all of the true professionals opinions.

I've told you time and again TO GET A DECENT EDUCATION!!!! Until you do (if you ever do!) you'll remain nothing but a target for every shyster that comes along!

 

[scott3x]

Thanks, man..not trying to be a netiquette nanny..just nesting is generally frowned on, as it burns extra bandwidth by posting redundant, unnecessary data...and it's hard to read.

I nest so much because of the thread structure in sciforums, as opposed to, say, democratic underground, which I find to be much easier to follow.

I find that nesting sometimes makes it a lot easier to follow what's going on. I've been known to go back up to 6 posts before the one I'm responding to (with shaman_), just to understand what we were originally talking about- I can do this with relative ease because I have flow charts of the first 1000 posts in this thread and what post any given post is in response to (or if it's starting a new subthread, I record that too), up to post 1213. I have a strong feeling, however, that no one else has spent the time to do this type of thing.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Actually psi, I wasn't capable of following your maths. That's why I asked you to explain it. I'm not trying to fuck with your head. (at least not now ) I 'm asking you to clarify your position. But you didn't want to, and only posted a link to a link of a different thread on a different board. I just thought it was funny that the people on that board were just as annoyed with your off-topic spamming of your pet topic just as much as we are.

Now I understand why you were banned from at least one of the boards...your nothing but a troll with nothing to offer. I asked you a question about the heating of a rod, and you dodged the question by asking me for the size of the rod. I gave you the size, and you ignore the response and switched topics again...and start tossing out insults. I can take the insults...just not the stupidity.

I hope they ban you here.

LOL

I'm stupid because you can't follow the math.

You aren't the only one.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/55173/

Now one of the simple things about education today is that kids are expected to know a little about the structure of the atom. Every half competently educated 8th grader knows that protons and neutrons are in the nucleus and electrons "orbit" about that nucleus. Now the funny thing about that in relation to this discussion is that the neutron was not discovered until 1932. But the Empire State Building was completed in 1931. Now what does that say about the sophistication of the math and physics in skyscrapers? So what does it say about how knowledgeable you are if you can't follow the math?

So if you admit that you don't understand the problem the why BELIEVE a normal airliner could bring the building down? Why not just admit that you DON'T KNOW? People just decide they don't like the controlled demolition business and just rationalize the plane had to have done it from there. Well if the plane did it it should be possible to analyze some things about the physics of that destruction but in order to do it YOU HAVE TO DO THE MATH.

I built this model for people that can't do the math to show the importance of the mass and distribution of mass in the towers.

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

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell everyone the tons of steel and concrete on every level of two skyscrapers that were designed before the Moon landing and a government agency spends 3 years and $20,000,000 producing 10,000 pages in the process of failing to provide that information but I'm a troll.

Is this a case of people getting the government they deserve?

This is why I am more concerned about the schools than who did this.

psik

 

[scott3x]

LOL
This is why I am more concerned about the schools than who did this.

Me too. If people are fooled by what happened that day, it can happen again; the same people don't have to be involved; only the recognition that they can pull a fast one on the american public.

I don't really understand how this animosity between you and MacGyver developed. I've seen that MacGyver has said that you've insulted him and I see that he has done the same to you. I suppose I'd have to go back a few posts and figure it all out... something I'm not too keen on doing since no one really asked me for my opinion on the matter anyway .

 

[psikeyhackr]

"A few individuals??" Don't make me laugh so hard!!! The VAST number of intelligent people here AND practically all of the professional scientific community KNOW all your junk is nothing but pseudoscience and pure garbage!!!

ROFL

This is anonther piece of nonsense we hear.

There is a VAST AMOUNT OF SILENCE on this subject from professionals.

This is a grade school physics problem. It should have been solved in less than a year. Who besides Bazant, R. Mackey and Frank Greening are supplying any MATH to explain this <18 second collapse? I emailed Frank Greening in June of 2007 about an error on page 3 of his 32 page report about the potential energy for the collapse.

On page 3 he had divided the total mass of the tower by 110 and computed the potential energy from that. First of all the buildings had 6 basement levels so he should have divided by 116. If you check Lon Waters' site you will find that some of the columns have 20 times the weight at the bottom as they do at the top. So his averaging of the entire weight and even getting that wrong means his complex potential energy calculations with calculus WILL GIVE THE WRONG RESULTS even if the equations are correct. He goes by the handle Apollo20 on the JREF forum. I confronted him about this last May. The last time I checked a couple of months ago he still had not responded.

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

But the truly hilarious thing about this was that I was told about Frank Greening by a man on Internet Infidels who said he had worked in the WTC and left the buildings 13 hours before the first plane hit. He was impressed by Greening because of all of th math he didn't understand. If you don't do the math people will do a snow job on you with it.

Vast my Ass. LOL

Physics is not math but you can't do correct math for physics without the correct data.

psik

 

[Read-Only]

ROFL

This is anonther piece of nonsense we hear.

There is a VAST AMOUNT OF SILENCE on this subject from professionals.

This is a grade school physics problem. It should have been solved in less than a year. Who besides Bazant, R. Mackey and Frank Greening are supplying any MATH to explain this <18 second collapse? I emailed Frank Greening in June of 2007 about an error on page 3 of his 32 page report about the potential energy for the collapse.

On page 3 he had divided the total mass of the tower by 110 and computed the potential energy from that. First of all the buildings had 6 basement levels so he should have divided by 116. If you check Lon Waters' site you will find that some of the columns have 20 times the weight at the bottom as they do at the top. So his averaging of the entire weight and even getting that wrong means his complex potential energy calculations with calculus WILL GIVE THE WRONG RESULTS even if the equations are correct. He goes by the handle Apollo20 on the JREF forum. I confronted him about this last May. The last time I checked a couple of months ago he still had not responded.

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

But the truly hilarious thing about this was that I was told about Frank Greening by a man on Internet Infidels who said he had worked in the WTC and left the buildings 13 hours before the first plane hit. He was impressed by Greening because of all of th math he didn't understand. If you don't do the math people will do a snow job on you with it.

Vast my Ass. LOL

Physics is not math but you can't do correct math for physics without the correct data.

psik

And once again you are simply showing how foolish you really are. Yes, the VAST amount of them - because they don't want to have to communicate with idiots and fruitcakes who believe the stupid, stupid conspiracy theories!!!

I can't blame them, either. They know full-well that's it's impossible to penetrate your thick skulls with real information.:bugeye:

 

[CptBork]

Alright, fair enough. I would like to point out, however, that it only takes a few individuals to decide that the points of me, Tony, Headspin and psikey don't have scientific merit in order for it to be relegated to the pseudoscience section- the admins/moderators. As a general rule, those same individuals have taken little interest in actually looking at the points in question, so it's easy to see why.

Fair enough in turn. My only reason for chiming in is to point out that your posts are tolerated here for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific merit. Permission to post here shouldn't be automatically interpreted as a nod of approval from the scientific community.

Definitely an AUTHORITARIAN perspective.

So you're saying this isn't the pseudoscience section?

 

[leopold]

there is almost 200 pages between this and the other threads associated with this topic and i've yet to see ANY conclusive evidence that explosives were used.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have flow charts of the first 1000 posts in this thread and what post any given post is in response to (or if it's starting a new subthread, I record that too), up to post 1213.

You need to get laid.

I have a strong feeling, however, that no one else has spent the time to do this type of thing.

 

[MacGyver1968]

LOL

I'm stupid because you can't follow the math.

You aren't the only one.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/55173/

Now one of the simple things about education today is that kids are expected to know a little about the structure of the atom. Every half competently educated 8th grader knows that protons and neutrons are in the nucleus and electrons "orbit" about that nucleus. Now the funny thing about that in relation to this discussion is that the neutron was not discovered until 1932. But the Empire State Building was completed in 1931. Now what does that say about the sophistication of the math and physics in skyscrapers? So what does it say about how knowledgeable you are if you can't follow the math?

So if you admit that you don't understand the problem the why BELIEVE a normal airliner could bring the building down? Why not just admit that you DON'T KNOW? People just decide they don't like the controlled demolition business and just rationalize the plane had to have done it from there. Well if the plane did it it should be possible to analyze some things about the physics of that destruction but in order to do it YOU HAVE TO DO THE MATH.

I built this model for people that can't do the math to show the importance of the mass and distribution of mass in the towers.

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

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell everyone the tons of steel and concrete on every level of two skyscrapers that were designed before the Moon landing and a government agency spends 3 years and $20,000,000 producing 10,000 pages in the process of failing to provide that information but I'm a troll.

Is this a case of people getting the government they deserve?

This is why I am more concerned about the schools than who did this.

psik

I don't think your stupid...just the way you post is stupid. I never claimed to be an expert in maths or physics..Im just a layman. The link that you provided lead me to a post jumbled with all sorts of stuff...I understood your calculations for free fall...but your conservation of momentum formula just didn't make any sense t me.

I wasn't asking you to teach me maths or physics...just restate your position in a more clear format. I think that is a reasonable request. If your position is so meaningless that you refuse to present it...then let me know so I can put you on ignore.

 

[shaman_]

Underwriter Laboratories/NIST's steel tests much harsher then reality of the actual 9/11 office fires and loads on the steel, and yet the steel still didn't fail, Round 2

Kevin Ryan's peer reviewed paper,

Peer reviewed only by other conspiracy theorists ......such as theologian David Ray Griffin.

The short reign of Ryan Mackey, page 7. I do admit that I don't know where to find Apendix A, however- while NIST's NCSTAR 1-6A does mention it, it doesn't seem to actually -be- in NIST's NCSTAR 1-6A.

Mackey addresses these claims in http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

 

[psikeyhackr]

I don't think your stupid...just the way you post is stupid. I never claimed to be an expert in maths or physics..Im just a layman. The link that you provided lead me to a post jumbled with all sorts of stuff...I understood your calculations for free fall...but your conservation of momentum formula just didn't make any sense t me.

You didn't tell me anything about what you read in FALL OF PHYSICS or where you got lost in it.

As far as I am concerned in this society a LAYMAN is a person that is supposed to be kept ignorant and confused therefore most so called scholars make things unnecessarily complicated. So all FALL OF PHYSICS does is show the before and after velocities of three sets of collapses with different distributions of mass to demonstrate that changing the distribution changes the collapse time.

So if that is true then what sense does it make to talk about the collapse time of the WTC without knowing the mass distribution.

All you have to do is cut and paste some part out of FALL OF PHYSICS and ask a specific question about it. Otherwise how am I supposed to know what you want explained? I regard the whole thing as an explanation so how am I supposed to explain an explanation if I don't know what you don't understand about it? Otherwise you just come across as someone trying to razz me because he can't understand the obvious. I don't know whether you read any part of it or not

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Fair enough in turn. My only reason for chiming in is to point out that your posts are tolerated here for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific merit. Permission to post here shouldn't be automatically interpreted as a nod of approval from the scientific community.

So you're saying this isn't the pseudoscience section?

.
.
I didn't set up this website and select the labels for the forums.

It looks like you are the one claiming to be a physics grad student. So presumably you can recognize what is and is not pseudo-science in something that involves a mere bit of Newtonian physics.

If there is a flaw in Fall of Physics you should be able to explain what it is.

Do you need a physics degree to know that a skyscraper must hold up its own weight? Do you need a physics degree to know that probably means more steel all of the way down to support the increasing weight above? So shouldn't that have some bearing on the top 16 stories supposedly coming straight down crushing everything below and doing it in less than double the free fall time?

So doesn't it make sense to you that we should have been told the tons of steel on every level in SEVEN YEARS even if the planes did bring the buildings down?

Or is that pseudo-science?

I eagerly await your explanation of what is wrong with FALL OF PHYSICS.

Of course if you don't find anything wrong then what does that say about AUTHORITY and this subject being pseudo-science?

psik