What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The average weight of what varies?

I hardly talk about the FLOORS I refer to entire LEVELS.

The average weight of the floor assemblies and the dead load on them was about a kiloton per level. It accounted for around half of each level's total weight.

IT IS SIMPLE AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH A MINIMUM OF ASSUMPTIONS even though we all agree it is impossible. But it does give a minimum collapse time which is more than some estimates for the real building.

No, it doesn't. You keep repeating this despite the fact I illustrated why it just cannot be true. The less energy expended in both destruction and momentum transfer will result in a faster collapse. How many times do I have to say this before you'll treat it seriously and stop ignoring me.

You also missed my latest question. Please answer that.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The average weight of what varies?

I hardly talk about the FLOORS I refer to entire LEVELS.

The average weight of the floor assemblies and the dead load on them was about a kiloton per level. It accounted for around half of each level's total weight.

In the construction business a DESK is a LIVE LOAD.

live load (lv) n. A moving, variable weight added to the dead load or intrinsic weight of a structure or vehicle.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

psik

A 9/11 debunkers favourite tactic is to sepnds years of their lives achieving nothing. The only tactic they have is to call people 'truthers' and witch hunters, and no one will ever take them seriously when they resort to name calling.

You'd think after all the years trying to debunk the people they call 'truthers' they would have 'debunked' everything by now, but they're still struggling to get anyone to listen to them all these years down the line.

That in itself speaks volumes!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
In the construction business a DESK is a LIVE LOAD.

My apologies, I should have been more specific. That figure includes live load too.

Can you please answer my questions as well? Thanks.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The average weight of what varies?

I hardly talk about the FLOORS I refer to entire LEVELS.

The average weight of the floor assemblies and the dead load on them was about a kiloton per level. It accounted for around half of each level's total weight.

IT IS SIMPLE AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH A MINIMUM OF ASSUMPTIONS even though we all agree it is impossible. But it does give a minimum collapse time which is more than some estimates for the real building.

No, it doesn't. You keep repeating this despite the fact I illustrated why it just cannot be true.

Just because you CLAIM to have illustrated something does not mean you did. And even if you did, which I doubt, that does not necessarily mean that I operate at your level of genius and recognize your succinct illumination.

The less energy expended in both destruction and momentum transfer will result in a faster collapse.

That statement is obviously true. But since no energy whatsoever is expended in destruction in my "magical" Conservation of Momentum Collapse I don't see what your stating the obvious accomplishes.

How many times do I have to say this before you'll treat it seriously and stop ignoring me.

You also missed my latest question. Please answer that.

As long as you say things that I regard as nonsense I will ignore them if I choose.

The absolute minimum time for a gravitational collapse from 1368 feet is 9.25 seconds because that is not really a collapse, it is a free fall through vacuum. So if my "magical" Conservation of Momentum collapse takes 12 seconds then it added 2.75 seconds to that without any energy lost due to destruction. You asked me about modelling floor connections breaking loose. I am not going to try to do that without energy data. But obviously the only thing that could do is slow my masses down thereby increasing the collapse time. So I do not understand what you are insisting on it for.

From my perspective we are at an impasse with you talking nonsense, but you seem to expect something from me and I do not understand what. You just seem to insist that I am wrong about something although your "elegant" programming yielded results quite similar to mine, though I have not seen your code yet.

psik

reply to post by exponent


Ok we have some kind of agreement even if it is flimsy...my take on it....we have a composite floor with individual component parts.

the component parts consisting of trusses...transverse trusses......pans....concrete.

the composite piece







we have the core....









then we have the the perimeter







so far there is nothing to dispute here i would imagine.....

we also have truss seats....as i have stated before....similar truss seats are still in use today.....even though designs depending on structures change to suit...but keep in mind...they are designed to carry the floor...and also loads added ....being that there is approx 3000m2 of floor space...it would be designed to handle most loads that would be expected to fill the offices.

also not only truss seats....we also have dampers....

but what seems to be lost in most descriptions which needs to be included....

are the shear studs that run along the transverse trusses....and the diagonal bracing to metal plates with shear studs on them...this is for dampening lateral forces on the buildings due to winds and earthquakes.

we can see then here.







I will not describe things yet...i am just trying to get consensus...to see what can be agreed.

ok so far....not quite.....we need the all important hat truss.....the piece which transfers loads between the perimeter wall and the core.





we need to keep in mind that was approx 5 floors alone in height....

so are we in agreement of the component parts of the structure so far...and if you have problems with it please let me know....so we can go forward...and see if things fit...so then we can analyze Bazant NIST And FEMA in a manner that meets the design of the towers....to what the modeled and simulated views were taken by the three previously mentioned works.

reply to post by exponent

The average weight of the floor assemblies and the dead load on them was about a kiloton per level. It accounted for around half of each level's total weight.

just a note here....where did you get that figure.....

I was reading Dr greenings paper on energy transfer and he says he worked the total weight out to be....

NUMBER OF FLOORS = 110
Allowing for floor thickness 12.1 ft (3.7 m) height from floor to ceiling
WIDTH OF EACH TOWER = 209 ft (63.7 m)
GROSS FLOOR AREA = 43,681 sq ft = 4058 m
2
DIMENSIONS OF CENTER CORE = 89 ft (27.1 m) 139 ft (42.4 m)
AREA OF CENTER CORE = 12,371 sq ft = 1,149 m
2
NET FLOOR AREA = 31,310 sq ft = 2909 m
2
VOLUME OF OFFICE “AIR-SPACE” PER FLOOR = 10996 m
3
USABLE OFFICE SPACE PER FLOOR = 20,550 sq ft = 1909 m
2
WEIGHT OF EACH TOWER = 510,000,000 kg
WEIGHT OF EACH FLOOR = 4,636,363 kg

the bottom figure he gets by taking total and dividing by 110

now i ask you is this erroneous.....or is it valid?

Originally posted by plube
the bottom figure he gets by taking total and dividing by 110

now i ask you is this erroneous.....or is it valid?

edit on 033030p://f56Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

It's erroneous. Greening used the old public guesses of about half a megaton per tower. In reality the towers weighed about a half of that.

If you look up Gregory Urich's work, he put together the most complete and succinct tally of masses yet known. It's definitely not perfect as there are minor differences with NISTs SAP2000 model. It's the closest we have so far though, and I used that to give figures.

I agree with pretty much everything in your previous post. Good job on mentioning the shear studs, I left those out for brevity. As long as we're including more complex descriptions it's also worth saying that the truss knuckles also provided a small amount of composite action I think, but nothing too significant.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Just because you CLAIM to have illustrated something does not mean you did. And even if you did, which I doubt, that does not necessarily mean that I operate at your level of genius and recognize your succinct illumination.

The less energy expended in both destruction and momentum transfer will result in a faster collapse.

That statement is obviously true. But since no energy whatsoever is expended in destruction in my "magical" Conservation of Momentum Collapse I don't see what your stating the obvious accomplishes.

You're just posting the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la i can't hear you. Have you been able to accept yet that you are missing a gravity stage from your physical model? Or that maximising momentum transfer cannot result in a minimum time? Do you accept any of these things at all?

As long as you say things that I regard as nonsense I will ignore them if I choose.
...
From my perspective we are at an impasse with you talking nonsense, but you seem to expect something from me and I do not understand what. You just seem to insist that I am wrong about something although your "elegant" programming yielded results quite similar to mine, though I have not seen your code yet.

I expect you to answer the questions I put to you. Funnily enough whenever they might disagree with your preconceived notions (which I have no doubt you guessed, rather than calculated) you seem to ignore them entirely. Do whatever you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

reply to post by exponent


well the knuckles will be quite import later on...as they are wrapped in concrete....which then becomes a limiter in the deflection and expansion due to fires....and also in thermal dynamics of heat transfer....which will be used when discussing NIST modeling.

Also since we can agree on the erroneous numbers that Greening used...it makes his paper on transfer of energy questionable.....not in the theory but in the workings....also taking an average for the floor masses is also erroneous...because the higher in the tower the materials were lighter...which is normal in almost all skyscraper construction....but also in these particular towers....we have a hat truss assembly which comprises five floors of the upper blocks.

Would you agree?

Originally posted by plube
Also since we can agree on the erroneous numbers that Greening used...it makes his paper on transfer of energy questionable.....not in the theory but in the workings

Not really that much. It's true the mass of the towers is definitely wrong, but the actual amount it's wrong by is reasonable. It's not like he assigned the top floor to 20x the actual mass, and made the lower floors super weak. The numbers are not different enough to result in a change of conclusion in any of the Bazant papers I believe. Not sure which of Greening's work you're referring to directly.

...also taking an average for the floor masses is also erroneous...because the higher in the tower the materials were lighter...which is normal in almost all skyscraper construction....but also in these particular towers....we have a hat truss assembly which comprises five floors of the upper blocks.

Would you agree?

Sure, but again it's not quite a knock out blow. If we run the actual numbers we find that the average weight stacks up pretty well through most of the towers. We also find that my average of about 50% of weight being the floors was a little off:

Actual level weights vs average of total mass (inc basements)


Actual level weights vs average of total mass (without basements)


Floor outside core mass vs total level mass

reply to post by exponent


i was not infeering it did anything to Bazants paper itself...i was strictly talking about Greenings energy transfer paper on energy transfer....methodology is what is important here...you can read the paper here....www.911myths.com.

As you can see...all information can be deemed as valuable whether it be from a truther site or an OS site...I do not care where the information to be evaluated comes from...I do not immediately disclose any information...as i have the skills to analyze for myself whether something seems valid or not....that is why i do not use general terms as in all youtube vids...or that was written by an OSer....because that does nothing but limits ones ability to sift through data.

and if a mass is off by a factor of 50% it definitely has an effect on the outcome.....if a document comes through saying we have computed this....but the margin of error is 50%+/- are you actually saying that would be a reasonable margin....so if we are dropped a mass of 2kg onto a soda can or dropped a mass of 1kg onto a soda can from same height we are going to say damage to the can will be similar....yes in both cases the can will most likely be crushed....but would it be crushed to the same degree,.....and would the crushing process be completed in the same time frame for both instances....since times are going to become important also as we progress through this process.

can we agree on this or do we get into semantics....rather than drawing logical conclusions to be explored.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Just because you CLAIM to have illustrated something does not mean you did. And even if you did, which I doubt, that does not necessarily mean that I operate at your level of genius and recognize your succinct illumination.

The less energy expended in both destruction and momentum transfer will result in a faster collapse.

That statement is obviously true. But since no energy whatsoever is expended in destruction in my "magical" Conservation of Momentum Collapse I don't see what your stating the obvious accomplishes.

You're just posting the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la i can't hear you. Have you been able to accept yet that you are missing a gravity stage from your physical model? Or that maximising momentum transfer cannot result in a minimum time? Do you accept any of these things at all?

You are free to explain what you want to do about momentum transfer that is no maximizing it. To my way of thinking anything other than maximizing momentum transfer is just going to increase collapse time.

How are you going to change the momentum transfer other than by reducing mass? Gravity is going to keep acceleration the same regardless of the mass. All you are saying is that anyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid or has some kind of psychological problem.

psik

reply to post by exponent


also in the representations you just provided i am going to argue the masses (as you see the peaks there) for the upper floors are not at all correctly represented by what you see in the graphs....as stated...from the top five floors down there wasn't a mass of concrete...so the spikes for the upper section will be argued to be incorrect.

you are understanding that the peaks for the 76th floor and 40th floors represent the mechanical floors.

we will also discuss the construction of those floors and the beams that were in the construction of those floors...they are of a completely different design than the trussed floor plan and lightweight concrete....just so we can both be on the same page here.

Originally posted by plube
WEIGHT OF EACH TOWER = 510,000,000 kg
WEIGHT OF EACH FLOOR = 4,636,363 kg

the bottom figure he gets by taking total and dividing by 110

now i ask you is this erroneous.....or is it valid?

I argued with Greening about this long ago.

What is meant by the TOTAL WEIGHT OF EACH TOWER? There were SIX BASEMENT LEVELS. Besides Urich's data I have never seen any discussion of above versus below ground level mass.

Now there are lots of sources from before 9/11 which say there were 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. So that means 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. The NIST agrees with that number. But the NIST says nothing about the total for the concrete. Now due to the fact that a skyscraper must withstand the wind and keep from tilting over I would expect there would have been A LOT of concrete in the basements and probably in the lower LEVELS of the towers also. I don't trust the NIST's and therefore Urich's data. There is talk of a box of concrete around the core at least part way up the tower.

So Greening is ignoring the basements and dividing by 110, so if that total included that basements then he is transferring that mass above ground. Plus he is saying every level has the same mass and all you have to do is look at Lon Waters' column data to conclude that must be nonsense.

So the Physics Profession should have been talking about and demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers within weeks of 9/11. That is obvious physics about skyscrapers.

breakfornews.com...

forums.randi.org...

Old news.

Now since two types of concrete were supposedly used in the WTC. 110 lb/cu ft and 150 lb/cu ft the weight of 425,000 cubic yards could vary considerably. But the minimum would be around 315,000 tons. So the steel and concrete alone would come to 400,000 tons in each tower. But how were they distributed down the buildings? Urich's data is the most DETAILED but I don't know how correct it is. I think it is impossible for the top 15% of any skyscraper to destroy the rest in less than triple free fall time from the top. The distribution of mass must be correct to correctly compute the Potential Energy of the towers which is supposedly what Greening is doing. 20 pages of fancy math based on faulty assumptions on page 3. But then a lot of arguments defending the Official Story seem to be based on psychological intimidation with complexities which hide really dumb basic assumptions.

So why hasn't the so called Truth Movement made this basic physics common knowledge since 2007? Why are we still rehashing the same stuff?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I am not personally arguing any points yet....I am right now just trying to get consensus on available data...so then we can proceed...I am leaving all personal opinion out of the mix right now.

It has always been obvious what i believe ...but my beliefs are going to stay out of this discussion....because my personal beliefs are not important...what is important will be the empirical data that will be used to determine the potential energy available without at all siding with one point of view or the other....as i can see...throwing insults back and forth does not help in progressing to some kind of consensus IMHO.

I agree with what you have been trying to show....and it makes sense to me....but by the same token...we have a government agency and papers put forward that need to be explored whether correct or not....is some cases i hope it will show that there has been misrepresented data put forth...whether it be one side or the other....I am not going to put my biased into the mix...as i am also hoping that Exponent will try to stay neutral on this....so that we can see if something worth while can be drawn from the discussion so that we can eliminate circular arguments....and i value all your opinions as well as any opinion from the Os side ....I have decided that this is what is needed IMHO It might change my mind...or it might change the minds of others....or we might end up just agreeing not to agree.

and thanks for your info....and any more info you can provide to assist is valued just as any info from the OS....I am trying to pretend that none of these papers exist...but they will be used to correlate data so that graphing and plotting of relevant data points can be used to determine what did or did not affect the collapse.

I myself am tired of arguing points ...it has accomplished nothing so far...so lets see if we can get agreements on values...and then maybe...just maybe we can satisfactorily draw conclusions.....consider this a lesson in peer reviewing in an open forum .

As you can see some agreement has been made...which is more than anything done between two opposing supporters in all my time on this forum.

Originally posted by plube
i was not infeering it did anything to Bazants paper itself...i was strictly talking about Greenings energy transfer paper on energy transfer....methodology is what is important here...you can read the paper here....www.911myths.com.

Ah I see, BLBG was Bazant, Greening and others, so I thought you could be talking about that too.

As you can see...all information can be deemed as valuable whether it be from a truther site or an OS site...I do not care where the information to be evaluated comes from

I really hope this is true, because I hear a lot of people claim to take this approach, but then soundly reject any information that could affect their pet theories. I'll reserve judgement of course.

and if a mass is off by a factor of 50% it definitely has an effect on the outcome.....if a document comes through saying we have computed this....but the margin of error is 50%+/- are you actually saying that would be a reasonable margin....so if we are dropped a mass of 2kg onto a soda can or dropped a mass of 1kg onto a soda can from same height we are going to say damage to the can will be similar....yes in both cases the can will most likely be crushed....but would it be crushed to the same degree,.....and would the crushing process be completed in the same time frame for both instances....since times are going to become important also as we progress through this process.

Certainly, this would be a concern if the margin of error were 50%. However, in Bazant's case, the energy needed to fail a single floor was something like 8x the capacity available. Even if Bazant was off by 75% in terms of energy available, the building would still be doomed. It might be that this figure was later refined though, I haven't exactly kept up with news in the last year so I may be remembering wrong or have missed something.

Still, we're talking about a situation where it might be fair to say 'hopelessly overloaded'.

also in the representations you just provided i am going to argue the masses (as you see the peaks there) for the upper floors are not at all correctly represented by what you see in the graphs....as stated...from the top five floors down there wasn't a mass of concrete...so the spikes for the upper section will be argued to be incorrect.

There were MERs for lift equipment, HVAC etc and a hat truss. That contributed to a quite heavy 'top cap'. The actual masses for the top 10 levels are (in tons)

2,610.20
3,845.54
2,639.91
4,210.56
2,849.55
1,848.07
1,847.48
1,853.91
1,860.34
1,866.78
1,873.21

we will also discuss the construction of those floors and the beams that were in the construction of those floors...they are of a completely different design than the trussed floor plan and lightweight concrete....just so we can both be on the same page here.

Sure the MER rooms were quite different to regular floors, but I'm not sure where this is leading, other than to build consensus. Frankly we could just go over NCSTAR1-1 or 1-2A if you like?

I too wish for more cooperation, but you don't need to worry about offending me. Feel free to post the places you feel are at the edges of our agreement.

reply to post by exponent


thanks for the reply...we are going to leave nistcar out of this...as We are going to use our own Initiative here to draw our own conclusions....and i am trying not to do point by point arguements at this time...i am just trying to set a basis in which we can both agree...Since as your saying....we cannot trust the sites as they are proving biased.....would you not agree?.

I think that is part of the overall problem with the whole mess....you see i draw my own conclusions from the work i do....so we will try and keep it at that...but i will seek out neutral info as best as possible....

now steel is used in high rise construction for two reasons....its strength to weight ratio....and it's ease of use in the building process.

but that does not say that concrete does not get used.....the trump tower of 92floors in Chicago is i believe the highest concrete tower to date....but this is a newer phenomena but it will be used more as the tech changes.

Also as we progress through this i hope to introduce views as to how a working model could be used to simulate the collapse. as it stands right now...It seems software is not capable of producing a collapse model that actually fits the video evidence of the collapse...instead it seems all simulations are made and they do not fit the collapse so the data is then fudged to fit the model...i would rather the collapse to fit the model...because until that can be done...all simulations are wrong.

so what do we have so far....we agree on the construction....hard to dispute that....we have agreed on the floor and truss design...we have agreed Greenings numbers on the transfers of energy is erroneous(i am not disputing his paper or Bazants).

also i think we have agreed that all data is valuable no matter what side we get it from....as long as it is true to what is being discussed. Also it has to fit the data from the real world...we do not want assumptions in this...only facts....I know it is going to be difficult...but in no way shape or form should it be impossible.

Also i am sure that a great many mistakes and corrections on both our parts will need to be evaluated and re evaluated throughout.

Also what will be really interesting...is...is it at all possible for a truther and a Oser to look past our own prejudices and actually come up with something....that will obviously shatter one or our belief systems.

Originally posted by plube
thanks for the reply...we are going to leave nistcar out of this...as We are going to use our own Initiative here to draw our own conclusions....and i am trying not to do point by point arguements at this time...i am just trying to set a basis in which we can both agree...Since as your saying....we cannot trust the sites as they are proving biased.....would you not agree?.

Not entirely. I don't mind dismissing NIST's engineering opinions etc for now, but the fact is that they contain a lot of the original documentation and the most authoritative sources on building facts (the post-construction modifications for example are not found in many places). They also carried out a number of tests (fire, mechanical etc) which are worth including in a discussion.

now steel is used in high rise construction for two reasons....its strength to weight ratio....and it's ease of use in the building process.

but that does not say that concrete does not get used.....the trump tower of 92floors in Chicago is i believe the highest concrete tower to date....but this is a newer phenomena but it will be used more as the tech changes.

I wonder if the Burj Khalifa would count. It has a complex structural frame but the highest extents are concrete.

Also as we progress through this i hope to introduce views as to how a working model could be used to simulate the collapse. as it stands right now...It seems software is not capable of producing a collapse model that actually fits the video evidence of the collapse...instead it seems all simulations are made and they do not fit the collapse so the data is then fudged to fit the model...i would rather the collapse to fit the model...because until that can be done...all simulations are wrong.

This really isn't how simulations work. No computer system or software package is powerful enough to simulate a couple of million elements for 30+ seconds. NIST's best attempts with a simplified model of WTC7 took months to run and still only progressed for a total of something like 20 seconds.

I doubt we'll ever (in the next decade to two) be able to simulate buildings with enough flexibility (in material parameters etc) and accuracy (in non-linear regions) to be able to come up with candidates to match to the actual collapse. Hell, even the formation of the dust clouds is literally cpu-years of time. The best pieces of software can barely manage a super low res mesh in realtime on the world's most powerful GPUs.

so what do we have so far....we agree on the construction....hard to dispute that....we have agreed on the floor and truss design...we have agreed Greenings numbers on the transfers of energy is erroneous(i am not disputing his paper or Bazants).

also i think we have agreed that all data is valuable no matter what side we get it from....as long as it is true to what is being discussed. Also it has to fit the data from the real world...we do not want assumptions in this...only facts....I know it is going to be difficult...but in no way shape or form should it be impossible.

Sure, I am totally fine with this, but I don't think the discussion will last long because as soon as we get to truss-sagging people will deny the photos are real or represent the conditions of the towers. I really hope you don't do this and prove me wrong, but there's only one way to find out! I'll let you bring them up on your own time.

Also what will be really interesting...is...is it at all possible for a truther and a Oser to look past our own prejudices and actually come up with something....that will obviously shatter one or our belief systems.

We'll have to see, I'm game!

reply to post by exponent


You two should give these guys a call for data...

www.purdue.edu...

If you read the article it states

The scientific simulation, the completion of which was announced last September, required several test runs before the researchers were satisfied; the final test run required more than 80 hours of high-performance computing. The simulation depicts how a plane tore through several stories of the World Trade Center north tower within a half-second and found that the weight of the fuel acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid, knocking out essential structural columns within the building and removing fireproofing insulation from other support structures. The simulation used lines and dots to show the aircraft and building during the event.

This was 2007. There was software to accomplish what you want then and now but it would take not days, weeks or even months to create. It is a project that someone would have to work a few years on but obviously there is no one who, basically, has the time or feel it is worth the effort. If Pilots for Truth would have not spent money travelling and staying in hotels getting nothing done, they could hire a few engineers and by now you would have a sim.

There is no excuse in creating it except when you do, and it does exactly as it did that day, will you blame in on the computer or programming? A slippery slope folks. Good luck you two