9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-02-2016 10:50 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  What's your goal here psikeyhackr?

Let's humor each other for a moment and say you where right.

What then? Do you plan on marching to the white house steps? Do you plan on writing a letter to structural engineers on how to properly build a skyscraper? Or maybe you'll write a per-reviewed paper on the inconsistency of physics.

As I recall I had 9/11/01 off for some reason and a friend of mine called me and told me to turn on the TV. I stood in the middle of the living room with my mouth hanging open watching the collapse of the south tower. So I spent the day watching that madness.

I don't really recall thinking any thing specific that day but I suspect deep down I did not believe a normal airliner could do that to a building that large that fast. For the next two weeks that was about all I could focus my attention on.

I went to college for electrical engineering and my pledge father was an architect. We watched the Sears Tower being constructed from campus. So what goes into skyscraper physics? Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists. But the 9/11 Affair has created a very peculiar situation.

Obviously a skyscraper must support its own weight and as you progress up a skyscraper the weight that a given level must support decreases. So in general the amount of steel would decrease up the building. The exception to this would be the mechanical floors which in the WTC were constructed differently from the standard modular truss design which was used on 87 levels. So if the collapse analysis is not done with correct steel and concrete distribution data then it hasn't been done scientifically. Also a skyscraper must withstand the wind which may be high for hours, not just a sudden momentary impact.

The Laws of Physics are not capable of giving a damn about the human race. An asteroid smashing into this planet would no more care about humans than the dinosaurs. So how many people died in New York on 9/11 is totally irrelevant to what airliners could do to 1300 foot skyscrapers. As far as I am concerned people just bring it up as a distraction as though this subject is sacred and should not be dug up. The issue is whether or not the planes and resulting fires could destroy the towers as was seen in the videos. But even if it is proven aircraft could not do it that does not necessarily explain what did, it only means something has been eliminated and further analysis is needed.

But this brings up issues some people choose to ignore. There were witnesses reporting explosions that seemed to have nothing to do with the aircraft. Some reported seconds before the impact. There is the issue of molten metal under the debris which kept the pile hot for a couple of months.

So this 9/11 Affair has not been satisfactorily explained. But to pick on a scientist who supposedly promotes the understanding of science to the masses, take Neil deGrasse Tyson, Titannic Tyson. (I can't resist the alliteration) He complained to James Cameron about the sky in the movie when the ship sank. He has talked about the physics in "Gravity", "Interstellar" and the scientific accuracy of "The Martian". But he sent out a public email letter on 9/12/01 reporting his experiences the day before. He lived within a mile of Ground Zero and had to leave his home because of the dust. He says he heard the buildings come down. I never actually saw them in the flesh.

But what has he said about the physics of skyscrapers or the collapses since then?

NOTHING!

There is too much silence on this subject from people with the certifications to support their statements. This should have been thoroughly resolved in 2002.

Now if you do not like my responses to being insulted by people I regard as dummies then that is too bad. But I am not aware of the NIST doing any models of the collapses and I don't see how one could be done without accurate mass distribution data on the steel and concrete. The most DETAILED data I know of is by Gregory Urich but I have communicated with him about the problems with it but his response is "Red Herring" and banning.

I can understand why some people would prefer to believe the official story because if it is nonsense then that opens a HUGE can of worms. My response is, "The Physics does NOT CARE!"

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 03:53 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
So much of what you say and how your complaints are formed just show massive logical leaps and patterns of strangeness. The common hubhreferee

NGT talks about astrophysical flaws in things he sees because that's his actual field. He mentions he knows how easy it is to see those stars in films are messed because always looking up at stars make it obvious. He's not a mechanical engineer or someone focused his background on physics of structures like buildings. It's stupid shit like that where you come off literally expecting things that make no fucking sense are telling. You're just leaping to conclude some more should or expectations of what others should do and think.

Perhaps bill nye his buddy should be your complainant. He's actually an engineer and also worked at Boeing In the past. He lives in NYC these days, but probably wasn't there then.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-02-2016 03:33 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The issue is whether or not the planes and resulting fires could destroy the towers as was seen in the videos. But even if it is proven aircraft could not do it that does not necessarily explain what did, it only means something has been eliminated and further analysis is needed.

But this brings up issues some people choose to ignore. There were witnesses reporting explosions that seemed to have nothing to do with the aircraft. Some reported seconds before the impact. There is the issue of molten metal under the debris which kept the pile hot for a couple of months.

Finally, we reach the root. Psikeyhackr is a controlled demolition theorist.

Unfortunately for him, these two points are as easily dismissed as the rest of his nonsense, as they are standard conspiracy theorist talking points and have long since been debunked. The reports of other explosions are untrustworthy at best, and no molten metal was found in the debris. Hot metal, certainly. But not molten.

(19-02-2016 03:33 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  There is too much silence on this subject from people with the certifications to support their statements. This should have been thoroughly resolved in 2002.

It was.

You are simply deluded.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
19-02-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-02-2016 04:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:33 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  There is too much silence on this subject from people with the certifications to support their statements. This should have been thoroughly resolved in 2002.

It was.

You are simply deluded.

Except for the fact that the Jews compelled the Muslims to go all kamikaze by holding their families hostage. The terrorists were just decent people doing what they could for their families. Blame the Jews. .... Pro tip: It's always the Jews.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 04:43 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(18-02-2016 10:13 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  You guys are immensely entertaining. Talking about NIST models that never existed and "Bite my dick, bitch" is an "intelligent" response.

I like you too psik. Now suck on my chocolate salty balls. Just suck on my balls.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Ok, it seems there is some misunderstanding of what a skyscraper IS, how it is designed, and what a structural element is.

Do we need all the data about the distribution of every bit of mass to make a good calculation as to the behaviour of a skyscraper? No. Does the amount of steel vary as you go up or down a building? In this case, no.

The weight of the building was supported by the outer skin and by the center steel columns. The structure essentially was the central support columns and the outer support skin with a bunch of stuff just tacked on. That's it. All the load was transferred down. Very dull structurally. We don't NEED to know exactly what was on it because it simply isn't significant. When you get into tons of steel the difference of a few fractions of a percent simply don't matter anymore.

Each level DID NOT support the levels above it, as if it was tiers upon tier of masonry. That's not how it works. The structure was essentially one single system. There are internal forced that did vary at different points, but that's about it.

Now, when steel and concrete fail in compression, loud bangs happen. When internal forces are no longer balanced out, failure happens. And failures can be loud.

There was no molten metal. Hot steel, which is to be expected, but not molten.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like natachan's post
19-02-2016, 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2016 10:57 PM by psikeyhackr.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-02-2016 09:00 PM)natachan Wrote:  Does the amount of steel vary as you go up or down a building? In this case, no.

The weight of the building was supported by the outer skin and by the center steel columns. The structure essentially was the central support columns and the outer support skin with a bunch of stuff just tacked on.

Really? The why does the NIST say that the core supported 53% of the weight? What was supporting the other 47%

Quote:Chief engineer John Skilling achieved the objective of open space with a double support system: the first so-called tubular design, consisting of a dense array of 240 columns around the outer wall or perimeter, and a network of 47 huge columns at the core. The core columns supported about 53% of the weight of each building, and were massive, up to 52 inches wide. The steel in these monster columns was seven inches thick at the base.
http://www.rense.com/general79/ctre.htm

Why does it say 7 inches at the base unless it was different elsewhere?

Quote: The perimeter wall supported 47% of the weight and also resisted the force of the wind. These exterior columns were reinforced with broad steel plates known as "spandrels," which girdled the building, like ribs, at every floor. Although the core columns gradually increased in size from top to bottom, for aesthetic reasons the external dimensions of the perimeter columns had to be the same all the way down, hence, required the use of heat-treated steel. For this reason Skilling's new tubular concept only became possible with the introduction of high-strength steels in the 1960s.

The exterior dimensions of the perimeter box columns remained the same. The thickness of the walls changed.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 11:13 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
At work. Your above post says that the exterior columns supported the 'other' 47%.

Note that no where does anything you've posted match your 'Wedding cake' building design image.

That you are incredulous of the events that happened is kind of understandable. That you keep ignoring the information others keeps presenting to you is the... odd part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 07:35 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Do you have a reading problem? By your own thing it says right there the perimeter columns supported the other 47%. Also no where does it say the WALLS got thicker as it went down. It says the support columns did, which I did not know. But I stand by what I said, the difference here probably was not nearly as much as you are assuming. Maybe a doubling of area at the base as compared to the very top. Maybe. I can't imagine it needing much more than that.

WALLS do not support weight in skyscrapers. They are considered part of the dead load. There can be support members that are used in the walls that support weight, but WALLS do not. WALLS are drywall over steel studs. They do not take significant amounts of loading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 09:02 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-02-2016 11:13 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work. Your above post says that the exterior columns supported the 'other' 47%.

Note that no where does anything you've posted match your 'Wedding cake' building design image.

That you are incredulous of the events that happened is kind of understandable. That you keep ignoring the information others keeps presenting to you is the... odd part.

What wedding cake building design image?

Are you talking about the washers and paper loops?

Try figuring out how to make a tube-in-tube model while making the strength of all of the connections equal by hand? Then figure out how to do it for less than $1000.

The washer and paper loop stack is a demonstration of physical principles not a model of the building. The paper loops are as weak as possible relative to the static load. Real skyscrapers are not made as weak as possible.

The only way I can think of to make a good tube-in-tube model would be to use a 3D printer that could make each level 2ft by 2 ft and 1.5 inches tall. Then all of the floor connections and columns could be computer controlled. But the distribution of mass data down the building would still be necessary to properly weight the structure.

Ignoring what information? Claims that no one provides any links for? How many debunkers have been ignoring witnesses who claimed to have heard explosions in the towers? It's OK for debunker right? Laugh out load

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: