An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before 1969.

Lets see if I can get a semi-straight answer to this: In your mind, is there a certain level of concrete and steel distribution per floor or level, or whatever, that would allow the plane crashes on 9/11 to cause the collapse of the buildings?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What is a RELEVANT Engineer?

Structural engineers, architects, etc.

Road engineers, electrical engineers, and landscape engineers are not relevant.

Do structural engineers use electronic computers? What kind did they use to design the Empire State Building? It was completed in 1931.

The ENIAC didn't begin operation until 1945. But it didn't have transistors. They weren't invented until 1947, but they were germanium not silicon.

That is the ridiculous thing about 9/11. The EXPERTS need to pretend this GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS is complicated. The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before 1969.

The EXPERTS need to talk people into doubting their own intelligence.

The NIST can't put the total amount of concrete into 10,000 pages in THREE YEARS for $20,000,000. That takes real intelligence.

psik

So, when are you getting your degree?

But hey, way to take my post way out of context. I told you to go and ask a relevant engineer why this information is not readily available. Then you go on a psychotic rant about computers and their history.

What it means? I have no idea really. But hey, get cracking on that degree. The world awaits your conclusions.

Newer release of WTC Attack September 11, 2001 from New York Police Helicopter

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, when are you getting your degree?

But hey, way to take my post way out of context. I told you to go and ask a relevant engineer why this information is not readily available. Then you go on a psychotic rant about computers and their history.

What it means? I have no idea really. But hey, get cracking on that degree. The world awaits your conclusions.

You can believe whatever you want about my degree. Electrical engineering ain't structural engineering.

How much have skyscrapers changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and how much have computers changed since then?

Skyscrapers are PRIMITIVE technology based on THREE HUNDRED YEAR OLD Newtonian Physics. They just couldn't be built until the Bessemer process made it possible to produce lots of cheap steel.

Grade school kids should be laughing at structural engineers for expecting them to believe that airliners could TOTALLY OBLITERATE buildings 2000 times their mass in less than TWO HOURS but not tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the buildings.

They should write a song: Believe whatever we say because we can wave degrees in your face no matter how stupid it is and regardless of what information we leave out.

Why can't they build a physical model that can completely collapse?

Here is one that doesn't.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

You can believe whatever you want about my degree. Electrical engineering ain't structural engineering.

A moment of clarity.

How much have skyscrapers changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and how much have computers changed since then?

121.53%

Skyscrapers are PRIMITIVE technology based on THREE HUNDRED YEAR OLD Newtonian Physics. They just couldn't be built until the Bessemer process made it possible to produce lots of cheap steel.

Actually, it was elevator technology that made skyscrapers possible. The bessemer process had been around for awhile.

Grade school kids should be laughing.....

They are, just not for the reasons that you would like.

....at structural engineers for expecting them to believe that airliners could TOTALLY OBLITERATE buildings 2000 times their mass in less than TWO HOURS but not tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the buildings.

Well, thats kind of one of those things there laughing at - except the structural engineers and the school kids don't think the planes obliterated the buildings.

They should write a song: Believe whatever we say because we can wave degrees in your face no matter how stupid it is and regardless of what information we leave out.

They should write songs like that. I'm sure they'll catch on in no time. Just like that little ditty: "tons o' steel and tons o' concrete and I don't think it matters or is real"!

Why can't they build a physical model that can completely collapse?

They can. You just got to start paying attention to reality.

Here is one that doesn't.

Thats cause its a model of a stick with washers.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Do structural engineers use electronic computers? What kind did they use to design the Empire State Building? It was completed in 1931.

The ENIAC didn't begin operation until 1945. But it didn't have transistors. They weren't invented until 1947, but they were germanium not silicon.

They used slide rulers, adding machines and card tabulators.

because they could not model the forces on the building would OVER DESIGN IT! If not sure the engineers
would err on very conservative side and over design, use more that what was necessary by a factor of several
times. Also Empire State Building (and other buildings until late 1950's) used a masonry (brick, stone, concrete)
exterior shell. WTC was one of the first buildings designed using computers (IBM 360 series with software like
FORTRAN) - engineers could now model the forces acting on building (wind, gravity). They could now know
exactly what size beam or bolt was needed. Also exterior walls were not longer masonry (too heavy and
expensive) - glass curtain wall took its place. WTC exterior walls were part of the building structural support
resisting the wind loads on the structure. When plane smashed holes in exterior walls destroyed much of the
structural integrity of the building. Add to this the damage to central core columns by the aircraft and have a
building now unstable. Aircraft impact set some 5 floors on fire - heat from which caused floors to sag and bow
the exterior columns until reached breaking point. when they failed floors came down crushing the building
and initiating collapse

Suggest read CITY IN THE SKY: Rise and Fall of World Trade Center

Gives good overview of the building and why it was designed and built as such

reply to post by thedman

Wow. What a fairy tale.
That is all it is.
Try as you will, you cannot defy physics. You cannot explain away a lie...not to people that have a clue about structural engineering.
Boom, boom, boom, boom,....
explosives were evident, in the video, based upon eye witness first hand accounts, and based upon expert testimony and the laws of physics.
We aren't ALL stupid morons. Wrap your mind around the facts, they aren't going away.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can believe whatever you want about my degree. Electrical engineering ain't structural engineering.

No **** Sherlock!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

How much have skyscrapers changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and how much have computers changed since then?

Well, this is quite the dumb question, since computers weren't around then......

But, to answer your question, skyscrapers have changed alot in that time. The Empire State Building was the tallest for the time. Since then, it has been passed many times over is size and height.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Skyscrapers are PRIMITIVE technology based on THREE HUNDRED YEAR OLD Newtonian Physics. They just couldn't be built until the Bessemer process made it possible to produce lots of cheap steel.

Thanks for the History lesson......

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Grade school kids should be laughing at structural engineers for expecting them to believe that airliners could TOTALLY OBLITERATE buildings 2000 times their mass in less than TWO HOURS but not tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the buildings.

Again, and again, and again, you keep saying that it was the airliners that caused the WTC to collapse, even though you have been told again, and again, and again, that is is not true. That is NOT what happened to the WTC.

Have you contacted a structural engineer to ask him/her why this information is not readily available?

Why are you so lazy?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
They should write a song: Believe whatever we say because we can wave degrees in your face no matter how stupid it is and regardless of what information we leave out.

Argument from personal ignorance noted.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why can't they build a physical model that can completely collapse?

This statement shows that you have no idea the problem with scaling and modeling.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Here is one that doesn't.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Yes, i've seen your failure to understand the problems with scaling. You do not need to point it out over and over.

Jim? Jim? Anyone seen JIm and his bag of sources?

Anyone?


Jim??? We're going to have to call in a search party soon if he doesn't turn up with those sources!

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Here is one that doesn't.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Yes, i've seen your failure to understand the problems with scaling. You do not need to point it out over and over.

So you can talk and you can deny.

Where have you or anyone else built a self supporting model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less and sustain physical damage that consumes energy in the process? A house of cards may completely collapse but the cards are undamaged. No energy from the falling mass is absorbed by damage.

What engineering school has built such a model or even discussed it. The Purdue simulation isn't a collapse it is just the north tower impact and which they get wrong because the core columns don't move. They contradict the NCSTAR1 report.

So build a model that does what you CLAIM. I want to see it.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


So you can talk and you can deny.

Where have you or anyone else built a self supporting model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less and sustain physical damage that consumes energy in the process? A house of cards may completely collapse but the cards are undamaged. No energy from the falling mass is absorbed by damage.

What engineering school has built such a model or even discussed it. The Purdue simulation isn't a collapse it is just the north tower impact and which they get wrong because the core columns don't move. They contradict the NCSTAR1 report.

So build a model that does what you CLAIM. I want to see it.

psik

Again, I want you to answer this.

Do you understand the problems with scaling and models?

Yes

No


Pick one.

reply to post by FDNY343


I will answer for him NO he doesn't understand the problems of models and scaling like all those youtube idiots that try to prove that the collapse couldn't happen when their MODELS and components used to make the models dont have similar ratios of strength when compared to the items they represent !!!

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


So you can talk and you can deny.

Where have you or anyone else built a self supporting model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less and sustain physical damage that consumes energy in the process? A house of cards may completely collapse but the cards are undamaged. No energy from the falling mass is absorbed by damage.

What engineering school has built such a model or even discussed it. The Purdue simulation isn't a collapse it is just the north tower impact and which they get wrong because the core columns don't move. They contradict the NCSTAR1 report.

So build a model that does what you CLAIM. I want to see it.

psik

Again, I want you to answer this.

Do you understand the problems with scaling and models?

Yes

No


Pick one.

Don't you have to have ACCURATE DATA in order to scale something? If we don't have the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on the twin towers how can anyone scale it.

My model is not scaled. I never claimed it was.

It is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the STATIC LOAD it must support.

Do you think any skyscraper is DESIGNED TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

But even though my model is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE it still does not come near collapsing completely. For $30 anyone that cares to can duplicate it for themselves. One person says he did and got the same results.

But if scaling is SO IMPORTANT why haven't physicists and structural engineers been demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC for the last NINE YEARS?

www.youtube.com...

I was talking with Ryan Mackey on sci-forums ages ago about scaling.

www.sciforums.com...

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The model in the youtube link is that yours the one with the washers and paper tubes?

Originally posted by psikeyhackrDon't you have to have ACCURATE DATA in order to scale something? If we don't have the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on the twin towers how can anyone scale it.

So that's a no, you don't understand the problem with scaling and modeling. Thank you.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My model is not scaled. I never claimed it was.

It is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the STATIC LOAD it must support.

Do you think any skyscraper is DESIGNED TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

But even though my model is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE it still does not come near collapsing completely. For $30 anyone that cares to can duplicate it for themselves. One person says he did and got the same results.

But if scaling is SO IMPORTANT why haven't physicists and structural engineers been demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC for the last NINE YEARS?

www.youtube.com...

I was talking with Ryan Mackey on sci-forums ages ago about scaling.

www.sciforums.com...

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik

Ignored, because you don't understand the problem with scaling and modeling.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackrDon't you have to have ACCURATE DATA in order to scale something? If we don't have the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on the twin towers how can anyone scale it.

So that's a no, you don't understand the problem with scaling and modeling. Thank you.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My model is not scaled. I never claimed it was.

It is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the STATIC LOAD it must support.

Do you think any skyscraper is DESIGNED TO BE AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE?

But even though my model is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE it still does not come near collapsing completely. For $30 anyone that cares to can duplicate it for themselves. One person says he did and got the same results.

But if scaling is SO IMPORTANT why haven't physicists and structural engineers been demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC for the last NINE YEARS?

www.youtube.com...

I was talking with Ryan Mackey on sci-forums ages ago about scaling.

www.sciforums.com...

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik

Ignored, because you don't understand the problem with scaling and modeling.

I am so upset! LOL

I won't hold my breath until you or anybody else makes a model that can completely collapse.

You can't scale without relevant data on what you are trying to scale. But we don't have distribution of steel and concrete data on the towers. A model that is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE but still does not do what you CLAIM it should does not need to be scaled because skyscrapers are not built to be as weak as possible and must withstand the wind. You just need to come up with excuses to dismiss a model that anyone can inexpensively duplicate and test for themselves.

psik

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by Varemia

 

You say that you think NIST's models are satisfactory. I disagree. NIST's model for WTC7 for instance does not look anything like the actual collapse of the building in the video-footage. There is contorting and bending of the structure in the model that is evidently not observable in the video. There appears to be a serious disparity here and it remains unexplained. Logic follows that if the model is not accurately simulating the outside of the building when it collapses then what is happening on the inside in the model must also therefore be wrong. However the controversies surrounding the veracity of NIST's models could be cleared up rather quickly I imagine if NIST simply released them for independent testing and then this forum would be considerably quieter as a result. The fact that NIST have chosen not to leads me to think that they do not what these controversies settled perhaps because they know that their models would not stand up to honest scientific scrutiny. NIST is, after all, an agency of the US-government, not an independent scientific research institution. In my eyes this automatically renders all of their data suspect.

le' cough

So, I've been away for a number of days because my school went on spring break. I didn't feel the urge to even turn my laptop on. Now, to address your highly misinformed information about NIST's WTC 7 model. Perhaps you didn't know, but NIST performed 2 separate collapse models: One without damage and one with the reported damage taken into consideration. A fire-caused collapse without any damage to the building resulted in a simulation that included bowing and many deformations. However, when the damage was factored in, the simulation resulted in a basically straight down exterior collapse after the interior became mostly destroyed. Anyway, I don't have all the data available at my leisure, so I will direct you to a very well researched and detailed set of posts which you may or may not find enlightening.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You'll find the pictures of the separate simulations that NIST performed toward the bottom of the post.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The model in the youtube link is that yours the one with the washers and paper tubes?

Yes, the page has the name psikeyhackr on it.

I did this one also:

www.youtube.com...

It is really absurd that this grade school physics problem has dragged on this long.

Does an individual need a PhD in physics and a masters degree in structural engineering to figure out that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above? That means the designers must know that weight to figure out how much steel to put on every level and adding more steel means that lower levels must support it. So the distributions of steel and concrete are very important to skyscraper design and will be important to analyzing the result of an airliner impact and any supposed collapse.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Still, HORIZONTAL SUPPORTS DON"T HOLD UP VERTICAL LOADS

I've tried to stress that every time you post, man. Yes, the vertical columns were meant to hold up the rest of the skyscraper. Yes, they are meant to hold more than enough to withstand a lot of extra weight in case of damage. However, the main failure point was in the horizontal supports. You simply cannot make them hold up a dynamic, impacting vertical load.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


What he is saying that unless all your components of a working model have similar ratios of strengths/mass etc to the object being modeled then the results wont be correct.

For example a flat sheet of paper across a gap will hold nothing, fold it into a shape below like this it will hold more



Still the same material but now the properties are different, that why I asked about your model each component does not have the same relationship of strength/mass etc of the components it represents in the towers!

Thats why youtube is full of videos like yours that well prove NOTHING!