9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2015, 06:58 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-06-2015 05:54 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 04:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Here are the numbers from a qualified engineer.

Various sites give slightly different results but the following figures seem to be generally accepted.

Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg).
Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters.
Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters
Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons
Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square
The "bathtub" - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep.


It's unclear whether or not he's also a Jew.

And here's where he scoffs at you:Nutty 9-11 Physics

Do you know what distribution means?

Was the amount of steel on the 105th level the same as the amount on the 5th level.

So where is the amount on each level specified and how is it that the people who claim they teach college physics cannot think of such simple questions? My stack of washers and paper loops had to be made stronger at the bottom even though it was only 3.5 pounds. So how much more steel is required at the bottom of a building weighing 400,000 tons?

psik

Computer simulations are far more accurate than scale models.

Your "model" was ridiculous.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
17-06-2015, 07:04 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-06-2015 06:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 05:54 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Do you know what distribution means?

Was the amount of steel on the 105th level the same as the amount on the 5th level.

So where is the amount on each level specified and how is it that the people who claim they teach college physics cannot think of such simple questions? My stack of washers and paper loops had to be made stronger at the bottom even though it was only 3.5 pounds. So how much more steel is required at the bottom of a building weighing 400,000 tons?

psik

Computer simulations are far more accurate than scale models.

Your "model" was ridiculous.

Wouldn't have even placed in an elementary school science fair.

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
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
17-06-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-06-2015 06:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Computer simulations are far more accurate than scale models.

Your "model" was ridiculous.

So where is your link to where you claimed I talked the temperatures necessary to weaken the steel.

I agree my model is ridiculous because no engineering school has made a better one.

But how can an accurate computer simulation be made without knowing how much steel was where in the structure and the concrete distribution as well.

So tell us how it is that computer simulations are so great but we don't have one already?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-06-2015 07:31 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 06:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Computer simulations are far more accurate than scale models.

Your "model" was ridiculous.

So where is your link to where you claimed I talked the temperatures necessary to weaken the steel.

I agree my model is ridiculous because no engineering school has made a better one.

But how can an accurate computer simulation be made without knowing how much steel was where in the structure and the concrete distribution as well.

So tell us how it is that computer simulations are so great but we don't have one already?

psik


We both know you won't watch this because it blows all your silly theories out of the water

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
17-06-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-06-2015 07:31 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 06:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Computer simulations are far more accurate than scale models.

Your "model" was ridiculous.

So where is your link to where you claimed I talked the temperatures necessary to weaken the steel.

Post #283 - do try to keep up. Drinking Beverage
Quote:I agree my model is ridiculous because no engineering school has made a better one.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. No

Quote:But how can an accurate computer simulation be made without knowing how much steel was where in the structure and the concrete distribution as well.

The buildings' plans exist and contain that information. Have they not shared it with you? Consider

Quote:So tell us how it is that computer simulations are so great but we don't have one already?

psik

Do you even Google? Facepalm

Search "world trade center collapse simulation".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 11:51 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-06-2015 05:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 04:49 PM)morondog Wrote:  Good link.

Yeah, I know about him. I also know that neither he nor anyone else has built a physical model that can completely collapse like the north tower in almost 14 years. How does someone claiming to do physics on the building without accurate distribution of mass data? Good trick that!

All he has is TALK just like you.

psik

You silly twat. Your physical model has about as much validity as a child making mud pies. You have proven you don't know shit about how skyscrapers are constructed and yet you think your toy model has validity. You're stupid and delusional.

I don't know, but I would guess that he hasn't bothered to build a scale model because a. others have done this analysis already b. he doesn't need anything fancy to dismiss claims of idiots such as your good self.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 12:42 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-06-2015 12:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 07:10 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Would you provide a link to where I said that on this site?

Here you go:
(16-06-2015 08:19 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Did you have to force air into the fire to get it hot enough or could it work just by convection?

How many TONS of steel did you work at once? Have you asked how many TONS of steel were on each level of the towers? How much TIME did it take for the metal to get hot enough for you to work it?

You are skeptical that there was enough heat to weaken a bunch of steel. On what basis do you express that? How much heat? How much steel?

(17-06-2015 05:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  [irrelevant answer]

psik

(17-06-2015 05:54 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  [bladda bladda bladda]

psik

Hey, asshole --someone answered a question of yours. Do the decent thing and reply to him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2015, 01:35 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
I seem to recall writing on this thread about as a kid I did an apprenticeship as a blacksmith. We used to heat the metal at 2600 C, then work the metal at 1900 C.

Those fires looked pretty damned hot to this former blacksmith. NOT a guy who makes horse shoes. I was an industrial blacksmith.

Anyway read this. The info' is all on the net.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
18-06-2015, 05:10 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
We don't MAKE scale models for civil and structural engineering projects because the variables involved DO NOT SCALE. This has been explained.

And yes, there are computer models. There is one from Perdue (sp?) that was very good. Five minutes on google.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like natachan's post
18-06-2015, 07:15 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(18-06-2015 05:10 AM)natachan Wrote:  We don't MAKE scale models for civil and structural engineering projects because the variables involved DO NOT SCALE. This has been explained.

And yes, there are computer models. There is one from Perdue (sp?) that was very good. Five minutes on google.

I love it! Somebody brought up the Purdue model.

Is the Purdue model of the collapse? It only does the top 20 stories. DUH!!!

If you compare the Purdue model to the empirical data on the south tower you will see they don't match. The NIST report has a graph of the deflection and oscillation of the south tower 11 stories below the impact point.

The Purdue simulation does not deflect. The Purdue model does not even simulate 11 stories below the impact.

You guys are so great at checking your SCIENCE!

Who is this WE you are talking about? Apparently WE don't have to prove what they say.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: