What is a 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorist"?

Originally posted by HannibalEG
Do you think any buildings in the world are designed to hold up the dynamic mass of their upper floors?

Can you cite an example?

Hello everyone.

The word BUILDING does not explain everything.

How the STRENGTH and MASS has to be distributed in a 110 story building is going to be very different from a 20 story building.



Image created by Kat Dorman as far as I know.

The real question about the south tower is why the tilted top portion did not fall down the side. Where was the center of mass relative to the core?

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Conclusive for whom?
Just because it is conclusive for ME does not mean it is conclusive for EVERYBODY.

So "conclusive" is in the eye of the beholder? What about all that stuff that physics doesn't care about semantics, etc? Just BS so you don't have to explain yourself?

Physics is dictatorial. I explained myself without words.

www.youtube.com...

It is you who can't come up with anything besides rhetorical bullsh#.

Coming to a conclusion is an intellectual process. The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about democracy. Where is your physical model that can completely collapse? Where has any engineering school built a physical model that can completely collapse? The Empire State Building is 80 years old. It is rather funny that the nation that put men on the Moon can't provide accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete for buildings designed before 1969.

Of course it is even funnier that people in the US who claim to know physics have not been demanding the information for TEN YEARS.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I'm sorry, I just think its really, really funny that you call everyone else stupid for arriving at their conclusions (that the WTC collapse were a direct result of the impact of the hijacked planes) without this allegedly vital information and yet you come to the opposite conclusion without the same information. And to prove your point you put some washers on a broom handle with copy paper and suggest that it is a "model" of the physical reality of the World Trade Center.

Please explain why everyone else needs the information to come to a conclusion and somehow you don't.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I'm sorry, I just think its really, really funny that you call everyone else stupid for arriving at their conclusions (that the WTC collapse were a direct result of the impact of the hijacked planes) without this allegedly vital information and yet you come to the opposite conclusion without the same information. And to prove your point you put some washers on a broom handle with copy paper and suggest that it is a "model" of the physical reality of the World Trade Center.

Please explain why everyone else needs the information to come to a conclusion and somehow you don't.

I find it REALLY CURIOUS that it isn't available after TEN YEARS but you can't explain what is wrong with my Python program that uses the conservation of momentum.

All you can come up with is psychological ego crap. Conformity must be maintained.





You just think that you can play the same bullsh# game on the Internet.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I find it REALLY CURIOUS that it isn't available after TEN YEARS....

Its in the report you refuse to read.

but you can't explain what is wrong with my Python program that uses the conservation of momentum.

Please explain why you don't need the same information to reach your conclusions that you insist everyone else needs to reach their conclusions. Why are you an exception?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I find it REALLY CURIOUS that it isn't available after TEN YEARS....

Its in the report you refuse to read.

You can just CLAIM that it is. Why haven't you told us where it specifies the total amount of concrete?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I already provided a link to a Python program showing that the conservation of momentum alone caused the collapse to take about 12 seconds without supports for 109 identical masses. So putting in accurate data for the distribution of mass down the building should obviously slow it down even more.

Yeah, I saw that. I'm going to check it out. I agree more accurate data should slow it down. Because it's heavier at the bottom. Do you have an idea of how much slower it would be?

So our engineering schools can't produce programs that simple?

I think they could, but have they?

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

I think they could, but have they?

To me it looks like our engineering schools are avoiding this issue. The Purdue simulation and Bazant at MIT are the only prominent cases I know of. But the Purdue simulation has core columns that don't move when the plane impacts which contradicts the NCSTAR1 report on the south tower.

How can the engineering schools say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

How can the engineering schools say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

Uh, what "engineering schools" say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, what "engineering schools" say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

You think that sentence makes sense?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, what "engineering schools" say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

You think that sentence makes sense?

psik

Uh, no - I was quoting you:

How can the engineering schools say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

So what "engineering schools" say they should have announced in 2002......

By the way, we really don't have "engineering schools" in the US. We have colleges and universities with engineering deprtments and engineering majors and some universities like MIT and Cal Tech that well known for their engineering and science concentrations but as far as I know we have no institutes of higher learning that are solely "engineering schools".

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

I think they could, but have they?

To me it looks like our engineering schools are avoiding this issue. The Purdue simulation and Bazant at MIT are the only prominent cases I know of. But the Purdue simulation has core columns that don't move when the plane impacts which contradicts the NCSTAR1 report on the south tower.

Why are they obligated to endorse the NCSTAR report? The whole idea was for them to conduct their own independent investigation using computer modeling, and their findings said that the impact caused much more damage to the structure than what the NCSTAR report took into account. It's only in your mind and in the minds of the conspriacy theorists that there even is any "OS" to begin with, which means it's only in your own mind that the NCSTAR report has to be considered gospel to begin with. I've been on the receiving end on five foot ocean waves so I subscribe to Purdue's conclusion that the incompressible fluids on the plane hit the building like a wrecking ball.

At best, all you've shown is that the possibility exists that these crackpot accusations of controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, etc., AS WELL AS the NCSTAR and Purdue explanations are wrong. I can live with that. Can you?

How can the engineering schools say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

Ummm...because they all accept the probability that the planes did bring the buildings down...? You walked straight onto that land mine, guy.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

I think they could, but have they?

To me it looks like our engineering schools are avoiding this issue. The Purdue simulation and Bazant at MIT are the only prominent cases I know of. But the Purdue simulation has core columns that don't move when the plane impacts which contradicts the NCSTAR1 report on the south tower.

Why are they obligated to endorse the NCSTAR report? The whole idea was for them to conduct their own independent investigation using computer modeling, and their findings said that the impact caused much more damage to the structure than what the NCSTAR report took into account. It's only in your mind and in the minds of the conspriacy theorists that there even is any "OS" to begin with, which means it's only in your own mind that the NCSTAR report has to be considered gospel to begin with. I've been on the receiving end on five foot ocean waves so I subscribe to Purdue's conclusion that the incompressible fluids on the plane hit the building like a wrecking ball.

At best, all you've shown is that the possibility exists that these crackpot accusations of controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, etc., AS WELL AS the NCSTAR and Purdue explanations are wrong. I can live with that. Can you?

How can the engineering schools say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

Ummm...because they all accept the probability that the planes did bring the buildings down...? You walked straight onto that land mine, guy.

It is not a land mine. Where have those engineering schools said that airliners DID destroy the buildings? You are just making assumptions. But saying NOTHING for TEN YEARS is pretty damn peculiar in itself.

The deflection of the south tower does not have anything to do with computer modeling. The deflection and oscillation of the south tower is from empirical evidence collected by a digital camera. The graph of the building's movement is in the NIST report. Just because the report does not contain the total amount of concrete does not mean the entire 10,000 pages is worthless. Maybe 500 pages of info is worthwhile if you can find it.

Why do you think 34 tons of incompressible liquid is such a big deal when a single floor slab weighed 600 tons? Just doing a simple velocity calculation from that graph and the conservation of momentum indicates the impact of the plane had to move 200,000 tons. That is why it only shifted 15 inches. 150 tons versus 200,000 tons.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Where have those engineering schools said that airliners DID destroy the buildings?

Nowhere.

Why?

Because they don't believe that the planes destroyed the buildings.

They believe that the impact of the planes, coupled with the explosive forces generated from the conflagration of the jet fuel and the burning of the jet fuel, the plane and the contents of the plane and the building led to a series of complex structural failures that casued the building's collapse.

You are the one that keeps on insisting on using the semantically deceptive language that hopes to imply that it was only the impact of the plane that caused the buildings collapse.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Where have those engineering schools said that airliners DID destroy the buildings?

Nowhere.

So the people portraying themselves as experts do not have to comment on a world changing event whose engineering and phenomenon they CLAIM to be experts on. Do they train people to design skyscrapers or not? Is the Empire State Building 80 years old or not? Was it designed without electronic computers or not?

How much better have computers gotten since the WTC was completed?

But we can't get a decent computer simulation of the collapse. In fact we can't even get the data to code into the simulation even though computers have gotten better since the WTC was destroyed by WHATEVER....

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So the people portraying themselves as experts do not have to comment on a world changing event whose engineering and phenomenon they CLAIM to be experts on.

No, they do not.

Do they train people to design skyscrapers or not?

Who, exactly, is "they"?

Is the Empire State Building 80 years old or not?

Well, its 80 years and a few months.

Was it designed without electronic computers or not?

Or not what? Or not without electronic computers? As semantically garbled as that question may be, I will answer that electronic computers were not used in the design as the design period pre-dates the advent of the electronic computer.

How much better have computers gotten since the WTC was completed?

I don't know. A lot? 1000%? A bunch? Mucho? What kind of answer are you looking for?

But we can't get a decent computer simulation of the collapse.

I wouldn't say we can't, we just don't because we don't need to.

In fact we can't even get the data to code into the simulation even though computers have gotten better since the WTC was destroyed by WHATEVER....

Why do you need data and computer models? You decided withing two weeks after 9/11 that it was impossible, so what's your problem? You came to your conclusion without data and models so why can't someone else conclude without the same data or models?

Also, that was some pretty slick editing in using my quote.

Originally posted by hooper
Why do you need data and computer models?

How do you make a computer model without data?

A computer is just a way of doing what a brain could do only faster and more accurately. That is why a brain is required to tell the computer what to do.

If so many EXPERTS are so sure airliners could destroy the buildings why aren't they eager to dump correct information on everybody and be done with it? It only makes sense to muddle data if it says what you don't want people to hear. So if lots of experts are sure airliners could not do it then it makes sense for them to not ask for details because they don't really want to get involved in this mess. But the longer this drags on the more absurd they look for not resolving this SIMPLE PROBLEM.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

How do you make a computer model without data?

The question was "why do you need data and computer models"? Not "why do computer models need data"? Why do you need the data? You came to your conclusions without data or computer models, so why are they needed?

A computer is just a way of doing what a brain could do only faster and more accurately. That is why a brain is required to tell the computer what to do.

Fine. But how did you reach your conclusions without data and computer models?

If so many EXPERTS are so sure airliners could destroy the buildings why aren't they eager to dump correct information on everybody and be done with it? It only makes sense to muddle data if it says what you don't want people to hear. So if lots of experts are sure airliners could not do it then it makes sense for them to not ask for details because they don't really want to get involved in this mess. But the longer this drags on the more absurd they look for not resolving this SIMPLE PROBLEM.

So how is it that you reached your conclusions without the data you keep insisting everyone needs to reach a conclusion?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

How do you make a computer model without data?

The question was "why do you need data and computer models"? Not "why do computer models need data"? Why do you need the data? You came to your conclusions without data or computer models, so why are they needed?

A computer is just a way of doing what a brain could do only faster and more accurately. That is why a brain is required to tell the computer what to do.

Fine. But how did you reach your conclusions without data and computer models?

I can figure out the obvious from the fact that skyscrapers must hold themselves up.

So after TEN YEARS the question is, "How can so many people be so STUPID?"

About the data it still comes to SKYSCRAPERS MUST HOLD THEMSELVES UP. That is why the Empire State Building was designed from the top down. They figure out how heavy the top 5 stories were because it is easy to design a 5 story building. Then they know how strong and therefore how heavy the steel for the next 3 stories down have to be. Then they repeat the process all of the way down the building.

It is the people who BELIEVE that the top 25 stories of the north tower could destroy everything below in less than 18 seconds who have the mental problem. Our schools have been designed to produce people that think what they are told. We have Harvard graduates who can't explain winter and summer but of course think they are intelligent because they are Harvard graduates.



Playing semantic games does not change the fact that computer programs without data are meaningless. Even the equations coded into the programs are a form of data. You are just trying to get people to run in illogical circles with you.

psik

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, what "engineering schools" say that they should have announced in 2002 that airliners could not have brought the buildings down?

You think that sentence makes sense?

psik

Uh, no - I was quoting you:

You changed the beginning.

psik