In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is ridiculous to think a 200 tons airliner could destroy a building that big in less than 2 hours.

psik

When you say that do you have an expert source to back it up or is that your 100% un-expert opinion?

Allow me to present you with some experts who disagree with that theory.

1.So provide us with a link to where any of those EXPERTS provided you with a table of data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTC 1 or 2.

2. Do you need a degree in physics to understand that skyscrapers must hold themselves up?
3. Do you need a degree in structural engineering to comprehend that skyscrapers must withstand the wind?
4. Are kinetic energy and the conservation of momentum too difficult for you to understand?
5. Do you need an EXPERT to wipe your behind for you.

6. Look at the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact and explain why the core columns don't move as a result of the impact.

7. We have too many dummies that won't think for themselves about grade school physics but will listen to EXPERTS talk idiotic drivel.

8. Have you ever noticed that cars wear out?
9. Doesn't that mean cars DEPRECIATE?
10. But what is the ANNUAL DEPRECIATION of all of the automobiles on the planet?
11. With all of the economists that appear on television regularly have you ever heard that question raised?
12. Don't the cars get added to GDP for every country?
13. So why no mention of their depreciation?

14. That should help teach you to trust EXPERTS.

15. Try finding the weight of a complete floor assembly. You know those things that some experts say pancaked and some experts say did not pancake. And then no expert knows what one weighed. ROFL

16. Now even if the floor assemblies fell the perimeter columns of the WTC would have been connected horizontally by spandrels and there was still the core to prevent twisting like that model did. So these EXPERTS dish out BS and expect dummies to not notice how ridiculous it is.

psik

1. www.journalof911studies.com...
I laughed at how easy this was to find. It even cites it's sources. Something you have yet to do.

13. because GDP= C + Inv +G + (eX-I)
SOURCE en.wikipedia.org...

I come here to find out what people who actually know something think. I didn't come here to hear someones 100% un-expert opinion and questions about the ever decreasing value of a car and be pointed out examples how how un-expert people are in terms of college economics 101.

So please cite your source or leave your 100% un-expert opinion out of this. On and for that mattter leave my 100% un-expert opinion out of this too!

You can laugh all you want. I have had Gregory Urich's spreadsheet on my computer for years. This is his website:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Frank Greening who I have also communicated with claims his data i the best but Urich admits that he is doing a linear interpolation on the exterior wall panels. That means he doesn't have the data. Plus his interpolation does not match the one data point we do have. There is an article from a 1970 engineering magazine stating that the heavies wall panel was 22 tons. Urich's spreadsheet has it at 19. So Urich's distribution up the outside of the building is wrong.

On the economics business it is the NET DOMESTIC PRODUCT not the Gross which takes DEPRECIATION into account but it only does CAPITAL GOODS. The Depreciation of all of the CONSUMER AUTOMOBILES is ignored. You can check any economics book you want.

You won't find it mentioned in any source. TRY USING YOUR BRAIN.

Cars purchased by consumers DEPRECIATE. The entire economics profession ignores it.

psik

You can laugh all you want. I have had Gregory Urich's spreadsheet on my computer for years. This is his website:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Frank Greening who I have also communicated with claims his data i the best but Urich admits that he is doing a linear interpolation on the exterior wall panels. That means he doesn't have the data. Plus his interpolation does not match the one data point we do have. There is an article from a 1970 engineering magazine stating that the heavies wall panel was 22 tons. Urich's spreadsheet has it at 19. So Urich's distribution up the outside of the building is wrong.

On the economics business it is the NET DOMESTIC PRODUCT not the Gross which takes DEPRECIATION into account but it only does CAPITAL GOODS. The Depreciation of all of the CONSUMER AUTOMOBILES is ignored. You can check any economics book you want.

You won't find it mentioned in any source. TRY USING YOUR BRAIN.

Cars purchased by consumers DEPRECIATE. The entire economics profession ignores it.

psik

THe source you linked was just to a forum site. For those looking to research here is the expert talking about the mass of the WTC.

SOURCE
Gregory H. Urich
B.S. Electrical and Computer Engineering

www.journalof911studies.com...

Very interesting information about the mass of the WTC towers. And another source who appears to have detalied numbers as to how he came to his conclusion. I thought you just said there were not experts with this kind of information?


"The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures (in terms of mass per unit floor area), data from NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris."

"The calculated debris mass (1.6 million tons) seems to correspond well with the reported debris mass (1.66 million tons)."


He said that the calculated mass corresponds with data from NISTS's SAP2000 model and that the calculated debris mass corresponds well with the reported debris mass.

Very interesting source. It appears to showing that mass of the debri reported by NIST is accurate.

Then you proceed to make 100% un-expert opinion claims about economics without citing your source. (you originally said GDP and now you're saying something different) You tell me to use my brain. Again i say please leave my 100% un-expert opinion out of this. Again why are you talking about economics in a 9/11 discussion forum?

[edit on 25-5-2010 by iamcpc]

[edit on 25-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Do you NEED an expert to TELL YOU that toothpicks and washers are NOT an accurate representation on the towers either.

Yes a tower is designed to hold its own weight,wind loads other static and dynamic loads.

Do you know that metal fixings tend to have a factor of safety of around 3 when loads are taken into consideraration DO you think the fixings could have resisited ALL the mass from the floors above falling on them ie MANY FLOORS NO!

But we are being told that the MASS of the top of the north tower came down and accelerated the MASS below all of the way to the ground in less than 18 seconds. That would mean an average of more than 50% of gravitational acceleration all of the way.

But my physical models demonstrate that MASS slows a collapse from the top down. So why can't the EXPERTS supply us with accurate distribution of MASS data much less explain how such acceleration could occur?

The toothpick model is obsolete. The larger washers with the paper loops is better. The MASS combined with the supports would have to SLOW the portion falling from above. The greater the safety factor the greater the deceleration due to the loss of kinetic energy necessary to overcome that safety factor.

So whose fault is it that you can't comprehend the conservation of momentum?

psik

THe source you linked was just to a forum site. For those looking to research here is the expert talking about the mass of the WTC.

SOURCE
Gregory H. Urich
B.S. Electrical and Computer Engineering

I told you it was Gregory Urich's forum site.

You can research it or doubt it if you want. I could not care less.

psik

did anyone ever realise that in the nfl season of 00 but in feb of 01 the ravens beat the giants in the super bowl ravens representing death they say a raven is the messenger of death right? giants being in n.y later that yr in sept 9/11 happens AFTER the ravens beat the giants in the super bowl then in the 01 season but 02 superbowl the patriots beat the rams now marduk/ra sign was a ram and he was the god in the age of the ram which was when babylon was the ruling kingdom which is from the MIDDLE EAST! btw still working on the meaning behind the rams-titans super bowl!

"The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures (in terms of mass per unit floor area), data from NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris."

"The calculated debris mass (1.6 million tons) seems to correspond well with the reported debris mass (1.66 million tons)."

There isn't much dispute about the TOTAL MASS of the building.

The problem is the DISTRIBUTION.

We are being told that the top 14% by height and volume crushed 85% by volume in less than 18 seconds. But skyscrapers must get stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom. So supposedly the lighter portion crushed the much heavier portion and the EXPERTS can't supply accurate distribution data???

That is laughable!

So what was the weight of a complete standard floor assembly, with a source of course?

The concrete floor slab can be computed to be 600 tons from its density of 110 lb per cubic foot but what did the corrugated pans and all of the trusses weigh. So why haven't EXPERTS mentioned that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? There were 84 of them in each tower, how can a component that was duplicated 168 times not have had its weight mentioned a lot?

psik

But then of course it is so PECULIAR that people bring up GREGORY URICH.

Urich is a Software Engineer in SWEDEN.

We are talking about buildings destroyed in the United States, the nation that put MEN ON THE MOON!!!

Why haven't structural engineers in the US come up with this information. Why is it from some dude in Sweden?

And the NIST can't even specify the total for the CONCRETE in their 10,000 pages. They specify the total for the steel THREE TIMES.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So whose fault is it that you can't comprehend the conservation of momentum?

psik

This is beyond bizarre, when one considers that One White Eye started a thread about PE because YOU don't understand the concept. Several members there tried - in vain from what I can tell - to instruct you where you weren't understanding.

Sad that they had zero effect.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

"From another thread:
psikeyhackr wrote:
The potential energy of the WTC was ZERO because it could not fall down."

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But then of course it is so PECULIAR that people bring up GREGORY URICH.

Urich is a Software Engineer in SWEDEN.

We are talking about buildings destroyed in the United States, the nation that put MEN ON THE MOON!!!

Why haven't structural engineers in the US come up with this information. Why is it from some dude in Sweden?

And the NIST can't even specify the total for the CONCRETE in their 10,000 pages. They specify the total for the steel THREE TIMES.

psik

You're the one that brought him up! It's a guy from sweeden who did an independant investigation.

I'm still waiting for the source that said that an airplane could not have caused the collapse of the twin towers or whatever your original claim was.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So whose fault is it that you can't comprehend the conservation of momentum?

psik

This is beyond bizarre, when one considers that One White Eye started a thread about PE because YOU don't understand the concept. Several members there tried - in vain from what I can tell - to instruct you where you weren't understanding.

Sad that they had zero effect.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

"From another thread:
psikeyhackr wrote:
The potential energy of the WTC was ZERO because it could not fall down."

I would love to find the source that said that a building has zero potential energy

What more do people need to see seriously? What is it gonna take?


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
What more do people need to see seriously? What is it gonna take?


www.youtube.com...

I see clearly. The government has started the truther/debunker movements with planted evidence to cause us all to chase our own tails.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

reply to post by iamcpc
Don't really get you...I'm not a truther I'm a realist
people have gotten fact and fiction mixed up badly...
But I rarely argue about it until I saw this thread and how many people still believe the lie...

Originally posted by iamcpc

I would love to find the source that said that a building has zero potential energy

Go read the thread. The source is Psikeyhacker, by bare assertion and misapplication/misunderstanding of physics.

That thread gets REAL funny when he tries to defend his view.

This is what truthers are. They are poorly educated, gullible people that think that modelling with tissue paper and flat washers means something in the real world.

Or like box boy Gage, with cardboard boxes.

Or like Bjorkman, when he uses lemons, pizza boxes, etc to try and make valid points.

Quite a riot, these guys. A neverending source of Stundie material.....

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Don't really get you...I'm not a truther I'm a realist
people have gotten fact and fiction mixed up badly...
But I rarely argue about it until I saw this thread and how many people still believe the lie...

If you mean the lie is statement "the WTC tower 7 collapsed from fire and damage" then you are mistaken. That's not a lie that's a THEORY.

reply to post by iamcpc
Nope explosives and that's clear it's not a theory it's the truth accept it if you'd like...If not well, then they have done a damn good job fooling you...

reply to post by okbmd


nice dodge!
Remember if it doesnt fit your theory, dont argue about it.

Since you are making claims that fire brought down the buildings you better explain how the molten metal appeared! its all the same topic!

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


Well we know from other threads its very EASY to fool you when photographs or videos are used.

reply to post by wmd_2008
ahhhhh not this guy again!
haha What are you doing on a website about conspiracies so much of the time? To discredit? So the moon landing wasn't a hoax and now 9/11 wasn't the biggest piece of inside job trash ever?


Sorry but me being fooled? never again...



[edit on 26-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Go read the thread. The source is Psikeyhacker, by bare assertion and misapplication/misunderstanding of physics.

That thread gets REAL funny when he tries to defend his view.

Yes it is funny how many people think mathematics is physics.

A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the distance must be EMPTY.

You could compute the mass of the top 100 feet of Mt. Everest and multiply that by its height above Sea Level. But what would that mean in terms of reality? It would be nothing but a mathematical DELUSION.. The mass can't fall. All of the mountain is in the way.

The WTC towers stood for 28 years. Hundreds of thousands of people went in and out for years without the slightest worry about them falling down. What was their potential energy?

ZERO!

They could not fall. Energy would have to be applied to change their physical configuration to some how put empty space under the mass. Now supposedly the airliners and fire could create empty space allowing the top portion to fall. But that would not be empty space all of the way to the ground.

Mathematics is not physics. People have to understand the physics to apply the mathematics correctly. Watch the 9/11 videos yourself. Material was turning to dust hundreds of feet above the ground. How could potential energy computed relative to the ground cause dustification hundreds of feet up? Explain the LOGIC of that in terms of PHYSICS.

I think EVERYBODY over the age of 12 is QUALIFIED to understand Newtonian Physics if properly explained. Why can't you. Why haven't ALL of your EXPERTS benn talking about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers for the last Eight Years.

I was commenting on Frank Greening's blather about Potential Energy years ago.

forums.randi.org...

Greeining divided the TOTAL mass of the building by 110 thereby assuming the same mass on every level of a skyscraper that had to be bottom heavy and he ignored the basements too. Wasn't there steel and concrete in the six basement levels?

Mathematics is NOT PHYSICS!

psik