Doesn't look right to me. But anyway. I'm not going to put any credibility on some random youtube video. I don't understand all of the hysteria about 9/11. When we launch a rocket into space or build a bridge or make a new soccer field, people don't give experts a tough time. But when the experts say 9/11 can be thoroughly explained without turning to conspiracy theories, some people just can't accept it. I think it's because they're haters in general.
The Physics Profession has not demanded accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. Who cares about Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum?
I guess it is time to burn Isaac Newton in effigy.
@flanksteak2 Get the NCSTAR1 report and search it for "distribution of mass" and "distribution of weight".
Each WTC tower had about 100,000 tons of steel. There is huge variation in claims for the concrete though, from 90,000 to 300,000. But for a building that tall they must be properly distributed. Talking about an impacts against and collapses of buildings that tall without specifying distributions of steel and concrete is complete nonsense.
@psikeyhackr You said "distribution", you did not say total amount.
See how confused you are?
It's like talking to a random phrase generator. We tell you the building is columns with floors spanning in between the posts and thus the the only thing that resists collapse are the vertical connections at the columns and in response you type:
"ROFL!!! NIST can't tell me the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers".
@flanksteak2 If you know the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on every level then you know the distribution through the building. If you know the distribution then you can compute the amount. But the NIST doesn't provide either one for the concrete. Just the amount for the steel.
You just think playing word games is winning.
The usual rhetoric and oratory crap from European culture.
@flanksteak2 OMG, another clown claiming what ain't there is there. We need the amount of steel and concrete on every level. Either kilograms or tons is fine. Research Gregory Urich.
Sources before 9/11 say the total was 425,000 cubic yards for both buildings. But there were two types of concrete used, 110 lb.cu ft and 150. That still comes to more than 300,000 tons with the lightweight concrete. But no source specifies reliable distributions for steel and concrete down the buildings.
@psikeyhackr Just the live load I.E. the stuff that was placed on the floors above the collapse initiation area in both cases was enough weight to exceed the load rating of the floor-to-column connections. You're already past go/no go with that weight alone.
The building framing and concrete, antenna tower, hvac equipment etc is all just a bonus that puts the mass way above what it needs to be to break the floor connections below making your arrest claim all that much more ludicrous.
@flanksteak2 Concentrating on the floor to column connection means you are not explaining how the core came down. But you can't even find how much a floor assembly weighed, the concrete slab plus the corrugated pans plus the 35 and 60 foot trusses.
Curious that we never hear that information in TEN YEARS but you can PRETEND to know how weak the connections were. LOL You are just RATIONALIZING BACKWARDS. Believe the conclusion and justify it afterwards. But WITHOUT RELEVANT DATA!
@psikeyhackr We know exactly how strong the floor connections are.
"Core came down"
The core fell after the floors and outer walls had collapsed.
How does your "it was piledrivings it to the groundz" theory explain a still standing core?
It doesn't and it falsifies your fantasy...that is why you don't address it....you'll resort to diversion and to some other realm of the collapse that you understand even less.
All one has to do is look at your "model" to know why you're a Truther.
@flanksteak2 I don't give a damn what you consider WEAK. You think EGO GAMES are more important than physics.
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about your ego & I don't either. Masses hitting other masses involves the conservation of momentum therefore knowing the masses is necessary for solving the problem. Physicists and structural engineers have spent almost TEN YEARS making fools of themselves by not demanding the relevant data to resolve this.
It's all there. You think that just because you are making noise that it means there is controversy, there is no controversy you are just making noise.
The data is there in the NIST FAQ's, the live load on each floor x 12 in the smaller case was enough to break the connections below. This excludes kinetic energy, the weight of the framing and concrete, mechanical equipment etc.
You can see how claiming the collapse should have been arrested is just plain dumb.
@psikeyhackr "The horizontal beams in the core have disappeared again."
OMG!!!!! How did that happen! It's as if the components that made up the falling part of the building were stripping them off the core columns as it fell through the building like we can see on the videos!!!!! ZOMG!!!
"We are supposed to listen to THE USUAL pancaking floors drivel."
Trutherland, where facts become "drivel" and fantasies become the Truth.
Is that your explanation for pretending that Newton's 3rd Law of motion didn't work on 9/11?
Believers in idiocy are so brilliant. So what engineering school has built a model that can completely collapse in NINE YEARS. Interesting detail that. In less than 2.5 months it will be TEN YEARS.
A permanent blot on the reputation of physicists.
9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.
The floor's vertical connections at the columns and the crossbracing in the core were not strong enough to provide an equal and opposite reaction to the debris falling from above.
Not even close. It's not even in the ballpark enough to make someone even run a hypothetical scenario and trouble themselves with doing the calculations because the possibility of collapse arrest is not even on the radar.
@flanksteak2 You can't even figure out what the 3rd law of motion applied to. It is demonstrated in my video and no other model on youtube.
The 3 paper loops in the falling portion can be crushed just like the stationary ones. That crushing absorbs energy from the falling mass. IT SLOWS DOWN. It eventually can't destroy any more below.
The idea of 15 stories completely obliterating 90+ stories is totally idiotic. And then the physicists don't demand distribution of steel & concrete data.
@psikeyhackr "The idea of 15 stories completely obliterating 90+ stories is totally idiotic."
Said the Youtube user that thinks his paper loop model accurately represents the mechanics of the WTC.
Once the debris breaks the floor loose from the column connections that floor becomes part of the falling mass which then makes the next floor easier to break because every single floor in the WTC is equal strength except for the mechanical floors.
@psikeyhackr Your model very losely represents a single column in the WTC's, it's not even remotely representative of the building assembly and only serves as a window into just how little you understand about the collapses.
@psikeyhackr "The model is not intended to be representative of the building."
Then why is your video titled "WTC modeling instruction and testing"? And why is your main topic the WTC's? You are obviously not a rational, reasonable person since you are now trying to distance yourself from your claims.
Does it hurt that much to admit that you were mistaken in making your claims?
@psikeyhackr "The model IS a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure."
No, your "model" is a rigid, monolithic object that losely resembles a single-walled cylinder. It's not remotely germain to a discussion about the collapse of the WTC's.
Then again I guess that was your intention. To simply have a video about nothing and then stick WTC in the title to generate more hits?
Why don't you just put up a video of you picking your nose?
@flanksteak2 {{ No, your "model" is a rigid, monolithic object that losely resembles a single-walled cylinder. It's not remotely germain to a discussion about the collapse of the WTC's. }}}
ROFL
You just need to maintain delusional physics. Are you saying every level of the WTC did not have mass? Are you saying that mass did not have to be supported? Are you saying the structure did not have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down?
@psikeyhackr "Are you saying the structure did not have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down?"
The components that were resisting the collapsing mass I.E. the floor-to-column connections and core crossbracing were of equal strength for the full vertical height of the building except for the mechanical floors at the top, middle and bottom of the building.
The columns were bigger at the bottom, but the columns were not resisting the collapsing mass.
@flanksteak2 And that is why the core columns stayed standing after the floors and outer walls had collapsed and the crossbracing had been stripped away.
Notice how one must be ignorant of several things in order to believe what you believe. Of course you don't. Crazy people never know they are crazy. ROFL?
@psikeyhackr Notice how your questions are vague and theirfore retarded and thus require the person you are being bashed by to ask you another question?
What sort of information do you want concerning the crossbracing in the core?
Do you think it will change the fact that your claim that collapse should be arrested is nothing more than you engaged in make-believe?
@flanksteak2 LOL The tons of steel on every level is VAGUE?
Why don't you provide a link showing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core? That is a peculiar thing not to have after TEN YEARS.
So why can't you or anyone else build a model that will completely collapse if what I am saying is make believe? Would that be too difficult for our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for four years?
@psikeyhackr "Show the layout of the horizontal beams"
The information is readily available to those who would know how to analyze and what to do with such information. You don't even know how to acquire the data you claim to be able to analyze.
Why do you suppose that is? Is it because a conspiracy is hiding it from you, or is it because you're just not a very bright person? We all know you think it's a conspiracy because you're not a very bright person.
@flanksteak2 {{{ Reversal of burden of proof is a Hallmark of someone practicing or engaged in believing pseudoscience. }}}
So all you can come up with is rhetorical bullsh# and claim stuff that ain't out there is. Like the layout of the horizontal beams in the core. Lon Waters has an entire website devoted to WTC modeling and has that cross section of the core columns from that basement to the top. He has nothing on the beams.
@flanksteak2 Saying everything is "a Hallmark of pseudoscience" is the ONLY Hallmark of pseudoscience.
If you have a background in physics, then explain free-fall. Explain the fall-times of the Twin Towers. And do it from first principles.
The burden of proof was in fact on NIST, who produced what they called a "scientific report". Their report is the epitome of pseudo-science. I suggest you look up the video interview of Lynn Margulis by AE911Truth -- she has impeccable credentials.
"The times based on visual analysis refer to the time when the collapse of the tower first became evident, while the times based on seismic records likely indicate the time when the falling debris first struck the ground. The differences between the two times were estimated to be approximately 9 s for WTC 2 and approximately 11 s for WTC 1 based on videos of the collapse."
Why did you omit the part that says the seismic shaking started 9 and 11 seconds AFTER the START of collapse for each tower and continued for approximately 15 seconds which means each tower took at least 24 seconds to collapse?
Notice how in order to forward your agenda, that you must lie. Or maybe you are really are that stupid and have never even watched Youtube videos of the collapse or completely read any write-up.
@flanksteak2 My intention was not to omit anything, which is why I provided you with a reference. Where in the NIST document does it say that each tower took 15 to 24 seconds to collapse? Or that the seismic data indicates the duration of collapse?
It doesn't.
The seismic data indicates when the collapsing mass first hit the ground. The resulting seismic data indicates the damping rate of the ground.
I have no agenda other than to understand the science. But clearly you do have an agenda.
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS "The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds."
~NIST~
This means the buildings were collapsing for AT LEAST 24 seconds each. Nowhere near freefall as you and the dipshit cabal claim.
But YOU are interpreting the results. That is YOUR interpretation ... not NIST's.
You said: "This means the building were collapsing for AT LEAST 24 seconds each...."
This is your statement .... NOT NIST's. That is my point. You provide no evidence for this.
Any bozo with a stop watch can time the collapse himself, and see that the rooftop hits the ground somewhere between 9 and 13 seconds. Do it yourself!!!
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS "This is your statement .... NOT NIST's. That is my point. You provide no evidence for this."
NIST clearly states the building was already collapsing for 9 and 11 seconds BEFORE the seismic waves started and that the waves continued for 15 seconds. This means collapse took at least 24 seconds for each building.
The waves stop when the pieces do not fall far enough to generate measurable waves meaning the collapse took even longer than the 24 seconds.
I agree which means you are of even less than "BOZO" status.
You're a complete fucking moron if you think the building totally collapsed at freefall speed. The truth movement quit making that dumbass claim over 6 years ago. You're very late to the table and sound really fucking stupid.
Remember in dumb and dumber when Hank rejoices about us landing on the moon? You're Hank.
@flanksteak2 Well, I do appreciate your D&D reference. The name-calling, however, does not provide you any credit.
Anyhow, if you have a section and page number where NIST says the towers took 24 seconds to collapse, please provide it. You are the only person I have EVER heard make this claim. Not surprising since it contradicts the video.
Also, considering that NIST only admitted freefall of WTC7 in the NCSTAR 1A report published in 2008, your timeline is clearly wrong.
@flanksteak2 Please cite your references for the claim that "seismic waves lasting 24 seconds indicate the duration of the collapse." I am not aware that NIST claims this, and besides, it contradicts the video data.
Go watch the videos and time the collapse for yourself. I guarantee your numbers will be closer to 9-11 seconds, than to 24 seconds.
Your assertions lead me to conclude that you are uniformed, and uneducated. And your name-calling only substantiates this conclusion.
2) You obviously haven't watched any of the videos.
3) You only think the things you do because you are stupid and as we can see, woefully unable to do any sort of meaningful research or you are just a completely gullible moron that will believe anything that Truthers tell him.
@flanksteak2 Assuming the towers' collapse initiated at the lowest floor of the impact zone in each case, (i.e. floor 93 for WTC 1 -- approx. 350m above ground -- and floor 77 for WTC 2 -- approx. 288m above ground) -- then the amount of time it would take an object falling at free fall from these heights can be calculated using:
t = sqrt(2 * d / g), where g is gravitational acceleration.
From floor 77 -- 7.66 s
From floor 93 -- 8.45 s
In each case it took about 1.5 s longer than free-fall.
@flanksteak2 If those are the times of complete collapse, then the fall times are substantially closer to free-fall.
In any case, apparently the massive structure below provided minimal resistance to the collapsing top. And, if the structure below was being destroyed, then certainly the top portion of the structure that was collapsing should have been destroyed as well, considering that it was not as strong than the lower portion.
And, mass was being ejected -- meaning less kinetic energy.
@flanksteak2 For the record ... I think that Ryan Mackey's model is amateur and basic, but at least it involves some basic principles that cannot be denied. Although, the model is greatly over-simplified, and about as sophisticated as an undergrad modeling project
However, the so-called "experiment" shown in this video is also incredibly amateur. There is no justification for the scaling of the model. There is no math. There is no physics. The strength-weight ratio is not justified at all.
Where are the PROFESSIONALS demanding & publishing accurate data on the distributions of steel & concrete down the towers? How can anyone do a scale of the towers without that info?
The model is not intended to scale. The paper loops are as weak as possible in relation to the weights they support. Anyone can duplicate it for themselves. Where is the engineering school that turns out PROFESSIONALS that has built a model that can collapse. Can't do it in TEN YEARS! LOL
@psikeyhackr Hey. I don't want you to take my criticism personally. You and I have the same goal. And I can only speak to my opinion anyway. But check out the paper by Gregory Ulrich on the Mass Distribution in the Towers. It's available at JournalOf911Studies.
The experiment you have here is interesting. I just have questions. WHo knows, it may turn out that your toy model is more accurate than one might initially think.
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS I downloaded Urich's paper & spreadsheet years ago. I am not claiming my model corresponds to the mass distribution of the WTC. The point is every level is as WEAK as I can make it and it still arrests the dynamic load.
Urich admits that he did a linear extrapolation of the mass of the exterior wall panels from the 9th floor to the top of the buildings. But that means his panels are 19 tons at the bottom. An article from 1970 says they were 22 tons. Urich is wrong!
@psikeyhackr Hey psikeyhackr. Just so you know, I appreciate your efforts. Truly. I'm just giving you my 2-cents. Take it for what it's worth. It is a cool experiment.
But, Ulrich also shows that his estimates are consistent with the amount of debris removed from the site to within 3%. I'd say it's pretty good. And others I've talked to think it is even too high.
I'd love to see that article if you can dig it out.
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS It is not just the AMOUNT of debris. It had to hold itself up & withstand 100+ mph winds. The distribution relates to how strong it had be level by level & the amount of energy required to crush it from above in order to completely collapse.
Where have you seen anyone compute the amount of energy required to crush each & every level of the towers?
It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single loop in my model. But the only source of energy is the falling mass.
@psikeyhackr But, his estimate is conservative by your account.
More mass at the bottom would lead to a longer collapse time, and a greater likelihood of collapse-arrest. I think the only way to improve the estimate is with the column data -- which will be a tedious process. That would also be necessary for a proper computer simulation.
But seriously, if you can find the reference for that 1970 article, that would help me out greatly. Thanks man.
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS NO! We know the total weight of the perimeter wall panels. Urich uses that correct total weight. But by putting less weight at the bottom he has to put more weight toward the top. That means he is saying that the bottom is weaker than it was and he is adding more potential energy by shifting weight upward. That would make the top stronger also. So his data would improve chances of collapse, assuming the building could be constructed that way.
+"SOME ARTICLES FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD" +"22 tons"
What bugs me is that TEN YEARS have gone by and people interested in this should all know it all by now. I have been banned from Urich's site and my pointing out this error is called a Red Herring. The NIST should have told us the weights and number of each different variation of wall panel in 2002. Urich should never have had to do any extrapolation.
@psikeyhackr But you know you're not really smart enough to understand what actually happened.
Just like Creationists say "God did it" rather than learning about evolution, Truthers say "The NWO did it" because you do not possess the technical nor mechanical skills that are required to be able to understand what happened.
You use conspiracy to fill the vast chasms in your own, personal knowledge.
@psikeyhackr "But then there were no stacked up floors in the debris after the event."
OMG!!!!!! Nooooo!!!! It's as if they were bent and crushed by the falling debris and then mangled even further as they became part of that debris!!! OMG how did that happen!!! NWO NWO!!!! Alert....Everybody scattergories!!!!
@flanksteak2 And so you see. Top of building begins to fall, debris crashes through building severing horizontal connections. The outer columns tip way, sometimes in long sections as lateral support from the floors is lost, the beams that connection the core columns together are stripped away and then we are left with a still standing core until the collapse is low enough that the columns are too long to effectively stand on their own and collapse as well!!!
@psikeyhackr No, Truthers have spent about 6 years (since the inception of Youtube) making total asses of themselves by ignoring facts (because they don't understand them) so they can engage in make-believe.
You realize that you are a grown man engaged in make-believe right?
Do you suppose they were pouring concrete into some mystery holes and places or are you just incapable of reading the design description and drawings and determining the answer the your irrelevant question?
Of course you know everything so it must be that you are lacking the needed data, not the necessary (very basic) knowledge that it takes to figure out such a piece of irrelevant trivia. Right?
These buildings got much stronger the lower down they went (naturally, the base has all the weight, it gets lighter the higher up one goes. It is impossible that gravity could account for what we saw on 9-11. Despite the obvious attempt to dispose of all of the structural elements of these 3 skyscrapers there remains a mountain of facts that make the destruction of wtc 1,2&7 impossible without the use of pre-planted explosives.
@winston2015 But what does this say about all of the people with college degrees especially PHYSICS degrees?
The nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years over this nonsense.
9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.
9/11 is so 21st century. Really Dumb! What is more ridiculous than watching ads for cars on laptop computers that could not have been made b4 the Moon landing. People with computers can't figure out planned obsolescence in cars.
@flanksteak2 Verbal bullshit is easy for morons like you.
Let's see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%. That is what supposedly happened to the north tower. But no engineering school has done it in NINE YEARS.
What is interesting is how crazy people like you think they are normal. My Dad has Alzheimers but if you tell him that he was he denies it in the same way you deny the fact that you are stupid.
@flanksteak2 So build a physical model that can completely collapse. What is stopping you or any engineering school from doing it?
The Laws of Physics do not care about sanity or name calling.
It is typical and boring that people who can't do the physics need to resort to name calling. Purdue created a simulation that they claim is scientific but the core columns don't move due to the plane impact. Great Physics! Very scientific!
No thanks. Tell us how strong each floor was and how much weight was applied to each floor and then tell us why you think that floors that are having their connection strength greatly exceeded should not fail. Once you can do this, I will get started on the model.
Second, why don't you tell us why you think the core columns still stood up to the impact area after the floors and outer walls collapsed?
Your reply should not be excuses or requests for models.
@flanksteak2 Who cares about the floors? Dummies that BELIEVE in the collapse focus on the floors and ignore THE CORE. There were 47 columns in the core and they were connected by horizontal beams at every level. But information about those horizontal beams has disappeared. I have never found a diagram of how they were laid out in the core.
How many tons of steel were on each LEVEL in the core. Why hasn't the NIST told us that? Why doesn't Richard Gage ask about it?
You can see them still standing a short time before they collapse in all the videos on Youtube. Apparently this obvious event missed your dubious analysis skills.
"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."
@flanksteak2 With that statement in hand, we know that the full vertical load carrying capacity of columns was not resisting collapse as all you dipshits seem to think because you have less mechanical skills than a drunken chimp.
The building can be thought of columns with floors spanning in between these columns. When the top begins to fall, all that resists collapse are the connections that hold the floors to the columns.
@flanksteak2 So no link to saying THE SPIRE came up to the impact point. Just another nitwit making claims he can't support & dishing out what he thinks are insults. You have to substitute ego for brains.
The core had beams spanning between the columns but the NIST can't provide a diagram of them. They can't specify the tons of steel on every level. Or the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.
And in NINE YEARS no engineering school can build a collapse model.
@psikeyhackr You're just generating random phrases now. Someone takes the time to explain something to you.
Rather than make an effort to understand it, you feel threatened by it, come up with a knee-jerk, nonsensical response and then repeat your demand that your claim must be true since no engineering built a model (to your specifications) that failed.
When did you realize that you know everything and are always right?
@psikeyhackr The statement I posted came from the NIST FAQ's. Notice how even though I told you where you could go to find the information, you claim that you were not provided with such data?
In other words controversy only exists because you choose to randomly shun the information that does not support your fantasies.
You are after anything but the Truth because you lack the technical skills to understand it.
Notice that YOU SAID that the remains of the core went up to the impact area but the information you quoted does not support that. The impacts were at 81 for the south and 94 for the north tower. So you came here to advertise that you talk bullshit.
At what point in your life did you realize that you know everything and that anyone who disagrees with anything you say or believe is nothing but wrong?
@flanksteak2 You come here & throw around insults & then MAKE A CLAIM that your own source demonstrates that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! Then you want to complain about my disagreeing with you.
You CLAIMED something that I never heard anybody claim before. You think I am surprised that it was WRONG?
LOL
Notice that NO ONE has built a physcal model that can collapse.
Skyscrapers hav to hold themselves up. The designers have to determine how to distribute the steel & concrete.
@psikeyhackr "Notice that NO ONE has built a physcal model that can collapse"
Notice that you are making is called an "Argument from Ignorance".
How do you rationalize core columns still standing after the floors and outer walls had collapsed while claiming the full vertical support capacity of the columns resisted collapse?
If you are unable to answer this question why not just say that it's beyond your technical skills to do so instead of inventing conspiracy theories?
@flanksteak2 {{{ How do you rationalize core columns still standing after the floors and outer walls had collapsed while claiming the full vertical support capacity of the columns resisted collapse? }}}
If the buildings were destroyed by something other than gravitational collapse then your question is irrelevant. The purpose of the model is to show that NO PERMANENTLY SELF SUPPORTING STRUCTURE could be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less.
@psikeyhackr "The purpose of the model is to show that NO PERMANENTLY SELF SUPPORTING STRUCTURE could be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less."
This is like saying that any gun of any size and caliber should be able to penetrate 1/4 thick steel plate I.E. the mechanics of the collapse or of the structure do not matter.
It's nothing more than you coming up with your own fake science in order to support your fantasy.
@flanksteak2 {{ "Notice that NO ONE has built a physcal model that can collapse"
Notice that you are making is called an "Argument from Ignorance". }}
So you can quote something and pretend it is intelligent. The NIST can't tell us the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers so ignorance is unavoidable. At least I am aware of the ignorance. You can BELIEVE the Impossible because you can't build a structure that would collapse regardless of whether or not it is like a building.
@psikeyhackr "The NIST can't tell us the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers"
This question does not make sense. It would net annoying glares from any engineer that was asked such a question because it's vague and meaningless. Clearly the person that would ask such a question has no clue what they are even asking for.
Anything you want to know about the building is readily available in the design prints which are public record.
@flanksteak2 {{{ You notice how your "model" does not even remotely mechanically represent the WTC's? }}}
Whether or not it is a building is irrelevant. The washers have MASS. The paper loops must be strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD of the MASS against gravity. Collapsing those supports requires ENERGY. The only source of energy is the KINETIC ENERGY of the falling MASS therefore it DECELERATES due to the ENERGY LOSS.
The WTC columns had to be destroyed or collapse would arrest.
@psikeyhackr "So what is stopping YOU or anyone else from building a better model that can completely collapse?"
Lack of interest. A 5 year old can understand that the only thing resisting collapse were the floor-to-column connections and that's why the core columns stood standing after the floors and outer walls collapse.
Only Truthers like yourself think that the floor assemblies are capable of holding up the entire weight of the building.
@psikeyhackr That is akin to claim the branches of a tree are just as strong as the trunk. In other words you think the branches of the tree can hold up just as much weight as the trunk itself.
See, if you actually read what I am telling you and make an effort to understand then you might be able to understand but all you are worried about is claiming you are right.
@NWOiAM the point is, that it's a structure that's 7 times higher than it's width all made from the same material. In fact the tower were built with massive tapered (got thicker the lower down one went) columns that the base were almost 53" of solid steel (the larger of the two core columns used.
and 240 perimeter columns) -all falling through themselves? all that undamaged structure below the crash zones>? And what about Newton's 3rd Law? *watch the vids by David Chandler (u'l learn afew things
@psikeyhackr Damn, I'm getting unpopular. Dislikes up to 7.
But after NINE YEARS the people who claim to know physics can't come out and say the collapse was impossible without assistance now can they? When are they going to build a model that can completely collapse though?
Nice demonstration. I still have to give the benefit of the doubt to Bazant et al, i.e., it is possible that the towers could collapse as he describes, i.e., if the mass stayed centered, which it did not, the collapses could have progressed. Not only did the mass not stay centered, a significant portion of the ST core survived the initial collapse and then disintegrated about ten seconds later. Very odd. And the forensic evidence is gone.
@DuRound2 Really? "However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin." NCSTAR1. This statement is made twice in NCSTAR1. It is repeated in NCSTAR1A. Let's say your right and NIST is wrong, where is the forensic evidence?
@psikeyhackr Yes, its more than 35 tons. I do not know how much more. It might be hundreds of tons. But they did not keep it all. There is no need to keep it all. There is absolutely no point to that.
Twoofers have this weird mindset that every stick and every dust particle needed to be saved. That we should build another whole world trade center to store the old trash of the previous world trade center.
INSANE. There is no reason to do that. We have plenty of forensic evidence.
@DuRound2 That is SO BRILLIANT. The purpose of having the steel is to determine the cause of the destruction of the buildings. How many causes of death can be determined from a fingerprint? A blood spatter might if there was enough blood.
Another attempt to compare animate with inanimate objects. Buildings don't move to leave footprints & don't bleed. What does it take to remove an entire skeleton though? The skeleton of the WTC was destroyed.
@psikeyhackr You don't need every piece of steel to determine that. Just like you don't need a whole body to determine that someone has died. The cause of death for a person can sometimes be determined by just one cell. Often, even if the cause of death is a macro cause, you only need a very small fraction of the body to determine the cause. A clogged artery may be only 1 inch long. A bullet wound may only cover a tiny fraction of the body volume. And pictures would be all you need.
@psikeyhackr The point is.. there is no need to keep all that metal. Just is no need for it. People with far more years of engineering and forensic investigative skills have than you have went over the wreckage very very carefully.
@psikeyhackr The weird thing is, you actually believe that makes sense.
It doesn't. Among other reasons, it is clear that there was a global collapse because the buildings have collapsed. Ego: Possible.
But there are other ways this does not make sense. You do not need ALL of it to prove one way or the other -- if the evidence is there, and if there is no evidence from the rubble proving this (and there won't be) having all of it does not help.
@DuRound2 Neither you nor anyone else has built a physical model that can be collapsed by the fall of its top 15% and I am supposed to be impressed by what YOU SAY does and does not make sense? NOT!
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about TALK. Build a model that can collapse.
@psikeyhackr Well, you see you keep moving the goalposts You said that it was not possible to build a structure that would collapse under its own weight. You said it was impossible. Then when I did it you objected to the materials I used.
But this is really irrelevant compared with the fact that you have not built a model that has ANYTHING to do with the WTC. There is no reasonable way to compare it.. as you admit... yet you do compare anyway.
@DuRound2 {{{ Then when I did it you objected to the materials I used. }}}
Did you post a video of a collapsing structure that you built? I didn't see it.
Do the cards in a house of cards get DAMAGED in the collapse? Can it be rebuilt with the same cards?
The paper loops in my model get CRUSHED. To rebuild it I must replace the loops. If you think being deliberately obtuse in order to talk a lot of rhetorical trash is intelligent that is your business.
@psikeyhackr No.. I didn't think I needed to. You accepted very quickly that a building made of soap foam and washers would easily collapse under its own weight. I don't have it any more.
It was not a house of cards. It was washers supported by foam.. and when it was collapsed it was a total mess. totally destroyed.
@DuRound2 I completely forgot the soap foam because it is even more STUPID than a house of cards.
The structure must be able to support its own weight without collapsing before the top portion is dropped on the rest. This entire issue it about the WTC towers. They stood for THIRTY YEARS. I left my model up for THREE DAYS before I did the drop. If your soap bubbles wouldn't last 30 seconds then they are totally irrelevant and TOO DUMB to discuss.
@psikeyhackr The only reason it is stupid is because it shows that you are wrong -- a structure that collapses under its own weight is possible.
Here's the bottom line: You want to compare this model to the WTC -- but it has no reasonable comparison. Its too strong and it is not modeling the collapse correctly.
You then say it is impossible to build a structure that collapses under its own weight, but you are wrong about that.
@psikeyhackr Why? So you can just deny it anyway? The ONLY way that I will put it on youtube... is if, in advance, you agree that you will stop making the claim that it is impossible to build a structure that collapses under its own weight AND if you will agree that your video has nothing to do with the WTC.
If you do those things, then I will put it on youtube.
"Neither you nor anyone else has built a physical model that can be collapsed by the fall of its top 15% and I am supposed to be impressed by what YOU SAY does and does not make sense? NOT!
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about TALK. Build a model that can collapse."
I would not have built the model if it had nothing to do with the WTC.
@psikeyhackr You know my terms. You must agree that you will stop making that claim and you must agree that your video has nothing to do with the WTC because it is miscontructed -- as you put it "defective".
@DuRound2 I agree you are an idiot for saying what I have to agree to.
You are incapable of making a self supporting model that can be collapsed by its top 15%. That is just a matter of how reality works. But it is a problem that all people claiming to know physics have to deal with. Physics will not change and 9/11 won't go away.
@psikeyhackr So, in other words, you want me to run around, make a video of my work and leave yourself an out to behave exactly as you have done in the past -- deny evidence.
I see no reason to go to any effort to education you when you *will* reject it and will not promise to change your views upon the presentation of evidence.
@psikeyhackr I have made a model. So according to your requirements, I have evidence.
What you want me to do is make it again and then video tape it. Which I will do. But you must agree to my terms first.
I see no reason to go to any effort to educate you when you will just reject it and will not promise to change your views upon presentation of the evidence.
@DuRound2 Yeah right, having no integrity means not believing somebody claiming they built a tower with soap bubbles even though the objective is for the structure to support itself until the top 15% is dropped on the rest.
So lacking integrity is simply not being as dumb as you want.
@DuRound2 {{{ even though you admit your model is grossly incorrect, }}}
Perfect demonstration of your integrity. I admitted that my model is not a tube-in-tube structure but it is demonstration a top down gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure.
It arrests! Where has anyone built one that is completely collapsed by its top 15%?
@psikeyhackr No... it is not that you admitted your model is not tube-in-tube. You said it was 'defective'. You have since then, edited your description so that you no longer describe your model as defective and instead call the scientist's model defective.
That is YOUR integrity. Altering your previous words.
@DuRound2 So you can accuse me of saying anything and claim I deleted it.
So everyone is supposed to believe I designed and built a model. Made a video recording, edit the recording and produce a sound track. Upload it and then claim it is defective.
Like that makes more sense than you talking nonsense when you can't explain what is wrong with it. ROFL
@flanksteak2 And all you can do is put words in people's mouths.
I never said anything about an Ins----ob. Morons can't explain the Physics of the IMPOSSIBLE and leave out information necessary to do an accurate analysis so they can only play psychological name calling games against people pointing out their bullshit.
Engineering schools that expect people to pay $100,000+ for 4 years of EDUCATION can't build self supporting physical models that can be totally collapsed the the top 15%
@psikeyhackr "can't explain the Physics of the IMPOSSIBLE"
It's been explained but clearly 12 floors worth of live load breaking a floor that can only VERY conservatively hold 11 in even a static loading scenario is well beyond your reach of understanding.
This has been flagged as spam show
Doesn't look right to me. But anyway. I'm not going to put any credibility on some random youtube video. I don't understand all of the hysteria about 9/11. When we launch a rocket into space or build a bridge or make a new soccer field, people don't give experts a tough time. But when the experts say 9/11 can be thoroughly explained without turning to conspiracy theories, some people just can't accept it. I think it's because they're haters in general.
gukonni 1 month ago
Comment removed
gukonni 1 month ago
wonderful and very excellent analysis. may I post this video on my own channel with a credit to you?
thisisyourwakeup 1 month ago
@thisisyourwakeup Post it anywhere you want.
I admit to some lack of comprehension for why it gets so little attention.
psikeyhackr 1 month ago
@psikeyhackr people prefer to remain ignorant
thisisyourwakeup 1 month ago
Well, it's that day.
9/11/11
TEN YEARS of Bad Physics!
The Physics Profession has not demanded accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. Who cares about Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum?
I guess it is time to burn Isaac Newton in effigy.
psikeyhackr 5 months ago in playlist More videos from psikeyhackr
Comment removed
AllDaySCIfi 7 months ago
@flanksteak2 Get the NCSTAR1 report and search it for "distribution of mass" and "distribution of weight".
Each WTC tower had about 100,000 tons of steel. There is huge variation in claims for the concrete though, from 90,000 to 300,000. But for a building that tall they must be properly distributed. Talking about an impacts against and collapses of buildings that tall without specifying distributions of steel and concrete is complete nonsense.
That is why 9/11 is such a SCIENTIFIC JOKE.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr The only scientific joke here is you.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 You demonstrated how good a job you did of reading the NIST FAQ and telling us what was in it.
I am SO Impressed!
The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers though they did it for the steel in three places.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr You said "distribution", you did not say total amount.
See how confused you are?
It's like talking to a random phrase generator. We tell you the building is columns with floors spanning in between the posts and thus the the only thing that resists collapse are the vertical connections at the columns and in response you type:
"ROFL!!! NIST can't tell me the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers".
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 If you know the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on every level then you know the distribution through the building. If you know the distribution then you can compute the amount. But the NIST doesn't provide either one for the concrete. Just the amount for the steel.
You just think playing word games is winning.
The usual rhetoric and oratory crap from European culture.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr So lets clarify here, you want to know the amount of concrete present on each floor.
What quantity shall this number be in volume or weight?
FYI, your question is easily answered by simply reading the description of the building and looking at the design drawings.
Since the info you want is readily available what do you plan on doing with it?
Making the floor-to-column connections 100's stronger than they were so they can arrest collapse?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 OMG, another clown claiming what ain't there is there. We need the amount of steel and concrete on every level. Either kilograms or tons is fine. Research Gregory Urich.
Sources before 9/11 say the total was 425,000 cubic yards for both buildings. But there were two types of concrete used, 110 lb.cu ft and 150. That still comes to more than 300,000 tons with the lightweight concrete. But no source specifies reliable distributions for steel and concrete down the buildings.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr Just the live load I.E. the stuff that was placed on the floors above the collapse initiation area in both cases was enough weight to exceed the load rating of the floor-to-column connections. You're already past go/no go with that weight alone.
The building framing and concrete, antenna tower, hvac equipment etc is all just a bonus that puts the mass way above what it needs to be to break the floor connections below making your arrest claim all that much more ludicrous.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Concentrating on the floor to column connection means you are not explaining how the core came down. But you can't even find how much a floor assembly weighed, the concrete slab plus the corrugated pans plus the 35 and 60 foot trusses.
Curious that we never hear that information in TEN YEARS but you can PRETEND to know how weak the connections were. LOL You are just RATIONALIZING BACKWARDS. Believe the conclusion and justify it afterwards. But WITHOUT RELEVANT DATA!
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr We know exactly how strong the floor connections are.
"Core came down"
The core fell after the floors and outer walls had collapsed.
How does your "it was piledrivings it to the groundz" theory explain a still standing core?
It doesn't and it falsifies your fantasy...that is why you don't address it....you'll resort to diversion and to some other realm of the collapse that you understand even less.
All one has to do is look at your "model" to know why you're a Truther.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 We know the core came down, but why?
How can it be analyzed without knowing the distribution of steel that was necessary to hold the structure up.
BELIEVERS like you don't need data. It's the 9/11 RELIGION.
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr Awe cute, you can't answer so you take the "safety" of repeating your same, easily answered question.
Weak.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 I don't give a damn what you consider WEAK. You think EGO GAMES are more important than physics.
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about your ego & I don't either. Masses hitting other masses involves the conservation of momentum therefore knowing the masses is necessary for solving the problem. Physicists and structural engineers have spent almost TEN YEARS making fools of themselves by not demanding the relevant data to resolve this.
You can't even read an NIST FAQ.
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "relevant data"
It's all there. You think that just because you are making noise that it means there is controversy, there is no controversy you are just making noise.
The data is there in the NIST FAQ's, the live load on each floor x 12 in the smaller case was enough to break the connections below. This excludes kinetic energy, the weight of the framing and concrete, mechanical equipment etc.
You can see how claiming the collapse should have been arrested is just plain dumb.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Ho Hum, The horizontal beams in the core have disappeared again.
AS USUAL! We are supposed to listen to THE USUAL pancaking floors drivel.
But then there were no stacked up floors in the debris after the event.
watch?v=eSueQsVsk_M
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "The horizontal beams in the core have disappeared again."
OMG!!!!! How did that happen! It's as if the components that made up the falling part of the building were stripping them off the core columns as it fell through the building like we can see on the videos!!!!! ZOMG!!!
"We are supposed to listen to THE USUAL pancaking floors drivel."
Trutherland, where facts become "drivel" and fantasies become the Truth.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 ZOMG!!!
Is that your explanation for pretending that Newton's 3rd Law of motion didn't work on 9/11?
Believers in idiocy are so brilliant. So what engineering school has built a model that can completely collapse in NINE YEARS. Interesting detail that. In less than 2.5 months it will be TEN YEARS.
A permanent blot on the reputation of physicists.
9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "Newtons third law"
The floor's vertical connections at the columns and the crossbracing in the core were not strong enough to provide an equal and opposite reaction to the debris falling from above.
Not even close. It's not even in the ballpark enough to make someone even run a hypothetical scenario and trouble themselves with doing the calculations because the possibility of collapse arrest is not even on the radar.
You understand that right? Of course you don't.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 You can't even figure out what the 3rd law of motion applied to. It is demonstrated in my video and no other model on youtube.
The 3 paper loops in the falling portion can be crushed just like the stationary ones. That crushing absorbs energy from the falling mass. IT SLOWS DOWN. It eventually can't destroy any more below.
The idea of 15 stories completely obliterating 90+ stories is totally idiotic. And then the physicists don't demand distribution of steel & concrete data.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "The idea of 15 stories completely obliterating 90+ stories is totally idiotic."
Said the Youtube user that thinks his paper loop model accurately represents the mechanics of the WTC.
Once the debris breaks the floor loose from the column connections that floor becomes part of the falling mass which then makes the next floor easier to break because every single floor in the WTC is equal strength except for the mechanical floors.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr Your model very losely represents a single column in the WTC's, it's not even remotely representative of the building assembly and only serves as a window into just how little you understand about the collapses.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 The model is not intended to be representative of the building.
The model IS a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure.
The model has fewer than 100 parts. How many were in the WTC? How many thousands?
Come up with some more idiotic complaints. You are occasionally entertaining.
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psikeyhackr "The model is not intended to be representative of the building."
Then why is your video titled "WTC modeling instruction and testing"? And why is your main topic the WTC's? You are obviously not a rational, reasonable person since you are now trying to distance yourself from your claims.
Does it hurt that much to admit that you were mistaken in making your claims?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "The model IS a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure."
No, your "model" is a rigid, monolithic object that losely resembles a single-walled cylinder. It's not remotely germain to a discussion about the collapse of the WTC's.
Then again I guess that was your intention. To simply have a video about nothing and then stick WTC in the title to generate more hits?
Why don't you just put up a video of you picking your nose?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 {{ No, your "model" is a rigid, monolithic object that losely resembles a single-walled cylinder. It's not remotely germain to a discussion about the collapse of the WTC's. }}}
ROFL
You just need to maintain delusional physics. Are you saying every level of the WTC did not have mass? Are you saying that mass did not have to be supported? Are you saying the structure did not have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down?
My model meets all of those criteria.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "Are you saying the structure did not have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down?"
The components that were resisting the collapsing mass I.E. the floor-to-column connections and core crossbracing were of equal strength for the full vertical height of the building except for the mechanical floors at the top, middle and bottom of the building.
The columns were bigger at the bottom, but the columns were not resisting the collapsing mass.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 And that is why the core columns stayed standing after the floors and outer walls had collapsed and the crossbracing had been stripped away.
Notice how one must be ignorant of several things in order to believe what you believe. Of course you don't. Crazy people never know they are crazy. ROFL?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 {{{ . the floor-to-column connections and core crossbracing were of equal strength for the full vertical height of the building }}}
So where is your link to information about the horizontal beams in the core? I bet it will be just as dumb as your one to the NIST FAQ.
You just provided a link showing you were talking nonsense.
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr Notice how your questions are vague and theirfore retarded and thus require the person you are being bashed by to ask you another question?
What sort of information do you want concerning the crossbracing in the core?
Do you think it will change the fact that your claim that collapse should be arrested is nothing more than you engaged in make-believe?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 LOL The tons of steel on every level is VAGUE?
Why don't you provide a link showing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core? That is a peculiar thing not to have after TEN YEARS.
So why can't you or anyone else build a model that will completely collapse if what I am saying is make believe? Would that be too difficult for our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for four years?
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "Show the layout of the horizontal beams"
The information is readily available to those who would know how to analyze and what to do with such information. You don't even know how to acquire the data you claim to be able to analyze.
Why do you suppose that is? Is it because a conspiracy is hiding it from you, or is it because you're just not a very bright person? We all know you think it's a conspiracy because you're not a very bright person.
LOL
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "So why can't you or anyone else build a model that will completely collapse?"
Lack of interest. Only a complete moron would need someone to build a model in order to prove the buildings would collapse.
"Would that be too difficult for our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for four years?"
Reversal of burden of proof is a Hallmark of someone practicing or engaged in believing pseudoscience.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 {{{ Reversal of burden of proof is a Hallmark of someone practicing or engaged in believing pseudoscience. }}}
So all you can come up with is rhetorical bullsh# and claim stuff that ain't out there is. Like the layout of the horizontal beams in the core. Lon Waters has an entire website devoted to WTC modeling and has that cross section of the core columns from that basement to the top. He has nothing on the beams.
You are just full of crap.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "You are just full of crap"
Personalization of the issue is a Hallmark of pseudoscience.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Yes, Lon Waters' site is SO PERSONAL.
wtcmodel (dot) wikidot (dot) com/nist-core-column-data
From a PhD mathematician.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Saying everything is "a Hallmark of pseudoscience" is the ONLY Hallmark of pseudoscience.
If you have a background in physics, then explain free-fall. Explain the fall-times of the Twin Towers. And do it from first principles.
The burden of proof was in fact on NIST, who produced what they called a "scientific report". Their report is the epitome of pseudo-science. I suggest you look up the video interview of Lynn Margulis by AE911Truth -- she has impeccable credentials.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS How long did the towers take to completely collapse?
flanksteak2 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, pg. 23 (pdf pg. 119):
"The times based on visual analysis refer to the time when the collapse of the tower first became evident, while the times based on seismic records likely indicate the time when the falling debris first struck the ground. The differences between the two times were estimated to be approximately 9 s for WTC 2 and approximately 11 s for WTC 1 based on videos of the collapse."
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS
Why did you omit the part that says the seismic shaking started 9 and 11 seconds AFTER the START of collapse for each tower and continued for approximately 15 seconds which means each tower took at least 24 seconds to collapse?
Notice how in order to forward your agenda, that you must lie. Or maybe you are really are that stupid and have never even watched Youtube videos of the collapse or completely read any write-up.
Cum stain idiot.
flanksteak2 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 My intention was not to omit anything, which is why I provided you with a reference. Where in the NIST document does it say that each tower took 15 to 24 seconds to collapse? Or that the seismic data indicates the duration of collapse?
It doesn't.
The seismic data indicates when the collapsing mass first hit the ground. The resulting seismic data indicates the damping rate of the ground.
I have no agenda other than to understand the science. But clearly you do have an agenda.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS "The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds."
~NIST~
This means the buildings were collapsing for AT LEAST 24 seconds each. Nowhere near freefall as you and the dipshit cabal claim.
You were debunked 6 years ago. You're done.
flanksteak2 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 I believe what NIST is saying here.
But YOU are interpreting the results. That is YOUR interpretation ... not NIST's.
You said: "This means the building were collapsing for AT LEAST 24 seconds each...."
This is your statement .... NOT NIST's. That is my point. You provide no evidence for this.
Any bozo with a stop watch can time the collapse himself, and see that the rooftop hits the ground somewhere between 9 and 13 seconds. Do it yourself!!!
Can you count to 13?
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS "This is your statement .... NOT NIST's. That is my point. You provide no evidence for this."
NIST clearly states the building was already collapsing for 9 and 11 seconds BEFORE the seismic waves started and that the waves continued for 15 seconds. This means collapse took at least 24 seconds for each building.
The waves stop when the pieces do not fall far enough to generate measurable waves meaning the collapse took even longer than the 24 seconds.
You're done
flanksteak2 4 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS "Any bozo with a stop watch can time the collapse himself"
I agree which means you are of even less than "BOZO" status.
You're a complete fucking moron if you think the building totally collapsed at freefall speed. The truth movement quit making that dumbass claim over 6 years ago. You're very late to the table and sound really fucking stupid.
Remember in dumb and dumber when Hank rejoices about us landing on the moon? You're Hank.
flanksteak2 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 Well, I do appreciate your D&D reference. The name-calling, however, does not provide you any credit.
Anyhow, if you have a section and page number where NIST says the towers took 24 seconds to collapse, please provide it. You are the only person I have EVER heard make this claim. Not surprising since it contradicts the video.
Also, considering that NIST only admitted freefall of WTC7 in the NCSTAR 1A report published in 2008, your timeline is clearly wrong.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 3 months ago
@flanksteak2 Please cite your references for the claim that "seismic waves lasting 24 seconds indicate the duration of the collapse." I am not aware that NIST claims this, and besides, it contradicts the video data.
Go watch the videos and time the collapse for yourself. I guarantee your numbers will be closer to 9-11 seconds, than to 24 seconds.
Your assertions lead me to conclude that you are uniformed, and uneducated. And your name-calling only substantiates this conclusion.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS
1) NIST does say this
2) You obviously haven't watched any of the videos.
3) You only think the things you do because you are stupid and as we can see, woefully unable to do any sort of meaningful research or you are just a completely gullible moron that will believe anything that Truthers tell him.
flanksteak2 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 LOL. Your style of argument is laughable.
All you can do is call someone stupid, and tell them they are regurgitating something ... LOL.
You have no idea how researched I am, what I know, who I am, or how critical I am of what I hear about 9/11 from any source. LOLOL
Grow up little boy. Either address the argument, or admit you are just slinging mud. Another YouTube jokester.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 Assuming the towers' collapse initiated at the lowest floor of the impact zone in each case, (i.e. floor 93 for WTC 1 -- approx. 350m above ground -- and floor 77 for WTC 2 -- approx. 288m above ground) -- then the amount of time it would take an object falling at free fall from these heights can be calculated using:
t = sqrt(2 * d / g), where g is gravitational acceleration.
From floor 77 -- 7.66 s
From floor 93 -- 8.45 s
In each case it took about 1.5 s longer than free-fall.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 If those are the times of complete collapse, then the fall times are substantially closer to free-fall.
In any case, apparently the massive structure below provided minimal resistance to the collapsing top. And, if the structure below was being destroyed, then certainly the top portion of the structure that was collapsing should have been destroyed as well, considering that it was not as strong than the lower portion.
And, mass was being ejected -- meaning less kinetic energy.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 just do the math.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@flanksteak2 For the record ... I think that Ryan Mackey's model is amateur and basic, but at least it involves some basic principles that cannot be denied. Although, the model is greatly over-simplified, and about as sophisticated as an undergrad modeling project
However, the so-called "experiment" shown in this video is also incredibly amateur. There is no justification for the scaling of the model. There is no math. There is no physics. The strength-weight ratio is not justified at all.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 4 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS
Where are the PROFESSIONALS demanding & publishing accurate data on the distributions of steel & concrete down the towers? How can anyone do a scale of the towers without that info?
The model is not intended to scale. The paper loops are as weak as possible in relation to the weights they support. Anyone can duplicate it for themselves. Where is the engineering school that turns out PROFESSIONALS that has built a model that can collapse. Can't do it in TEN YEARS! LOL
psikeyhackr 4 months ago
@psikeyhackr Hey. I don't want you to take my criticism personally. You and I have the same goal. And I can only speak to my opinion anyway. But check out the paper by Gregory Ulrich on the Mass Distribution in the Towers. It's available at JournalOf911Studies.
The experiment you have here is interesting. I just have questions. WHo knows, it may turn out that your toy model is more accurate than one might initially think.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 3 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS I downloaded Urich's paper & spreadsheet years ago. I am not claiming my model corresponds to the mass distribution of the WTC. The point is every level is as WEAK as I can make it and it still arrests the dynamic load.
Urich admits that he did a linear extrapolation of the mass of the exterior wall panels from the 9th floor to the top of the buildings. But that means his panels are 19 tons at the bottom. An article from 1970 says they were 22 tons. Urich is wrong!
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr Hey psikeyhackr. Just so you know, I appreciate your efforts. Truly. I'm just giving you my 2-cents. Take it for what it's worth. It is a cool experiment.
But, Ulrich also shows that his estimates are consistent with the amount of debris removed from the site to within 3%. I'd say it's pretty good. And others I've talked to think it is even too high.
I'd love to see that article if you can dig it out.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 3 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS It is not just the AMOUNT of debris. It had to hold itself up & withstand 100+ mph winds. The distribution relates to how strong it had be level by level & the amount of energy required to crush it from above in order to completely collapse.
Where have you seen anyone compute the amount of energy required to crush each & every level of the towers?
It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single loop in my model. But the only source of energy is the falling mass.
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr But, his estimate is conservative by your account.
More mass at the bottom would lead to a longer collapse time, and a greater likelihood of collapse-arrest. I think the only way to improve the estimate is with the column data -- which will be a tedious process. That would also be necessary for a proper computer simulation.
But seriously, if you can find the reference for that 1970 article, that would help me out greatly. Thanks man.
WhatsReallyGoingOnUS 3 months ago
@WhatsReallyGoingOnUS NO! We know the total weight of the perimeter wall panels. Urich uses that correct total weight. But by putting less weight at the bottom he has to put more weight toward the top. That means he is saying that the bottom is weaker than it was and he is adding more potential energy by shifting weight upward. That would make the top stronger also. So his data would improve chances of collapse, assuming the building could be constructed that way.
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
Just Google this:
+"SOME ARTICLES FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD" +"22 tons"
What bugs me is that TEN YEARS have gone by and people interested in this should all know it all by now. I have been banned from Urich's site and my pointing out this error is called a Red Herring. The NIST should have told us the weights and number of each different variation of wall panel in 2002. Urich should never have had to do any extrapolation.
psikeyhackr 3 months ago
@psikeyhackr But you know you're not really smart enough to understand what actually happened.
Just like Creationists say "God did it" rather than learning about evolution, Truthers say "The NWO did it" because you do not possess the technical nor mechanical skills that are required to be able to understand what happened.
You use conspiracy to fill the vast chasms in your own, personal knowledge.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psikeyhackr "But then there were no stacked up floors in the debris after the event."
OMG!!!!!! Nooooo!!!! It's as if they were bent and crushed by the falling debris and then mangled even further as they became part of that debris!!! OMG how did that happen!!! NWO NWO!!!! Alert....Everybody scattergories!!!!
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 And so you see. Top of building begins to fall, debris crashes through building severing horizontal connections. The outer columns tip way, sometimes in long sections as lateral support from the floors is lost, the beams that connection the core columns together are stripped away and then we are left with a still standing core until the collapse is low enough that the columns are too long to effectively stand on their own and collapse as well!!!
No wait, it was thermite.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr No, Truthers have spent about 6 years (since the inception of Youtube) making total asses of themselves by ignoring facts (because they don't understand them) so they can engage in make-believe.
You realize that you are a grown man engaged in make-believe right?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "No source specificies"
Do you suppose they were pouring concrete into some mystery holes and places or are you just incapable of reading the design description and drawings and determining the answer the your irrelevant question?
Of course you know everything so it must be that you are lacking the needed data, not the necessary (very basic) knowledge that it takes to figure out such a piece of irrelevant trivia. Right?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
Dislikes jumped from 7 to 9 but with no explanations. We have tremendous courageous intellects out there.
psikeyhackr 9 months ago
These buildings got much stronger the lower down they went (naturally, the base has all the weight, it gets lighter the higher up one goes. It is impossible that gravity could account for what we saw on 9-11. Despite the obvious attempt to dispose of all of the structural elements of these 3 skyscrapers there remains a mountain of facts that make the destruction of wtc 1,2&7 impossible without the use of pre-planted explosives.
winston2015 10 months ago
@winston2015 But what does this say about all of the people with college degrees especially PHYSICS degrees?
The nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years over this nonsense.
9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.
9/11 is so 21st century. Really Dumb! What is more ridiculous than watching ads for cars on laptop computers that could not have been made b4 the Moon landing. People with computers can't figure out planned obsolescence in cars.
psikeyhackr 9 months ago
@psikeyhackr 9/11 is the Apollo-program of the 21st century.
we have been psyopped before.
losability 9 months ago
nice model
marinesownzj00 10 months ago
@marinesownzj00 OMG, somebody that doesn't think I'm an idiot. My heart can't take the stress.
I'm passing out. AHAHAAhAhAhahahahaaaa.....
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
You think that paper loops represent an accurate model? Foolish!!
NWOiAM 10 months ago
@NWOiAM What the hell do you think is supposed to be ACCURATE or what that means in relation to what that model does?
The paper is just strong enough to support the masses on it. But can the falling mass then crush the paper. It is not a matter of ACCURACY.
Since we don't have ACCURATE data on the WTC towers what are you suggesting any accuracy be judged against?
.
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
@psikeyhackr You batshit-crazy fucktard.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Verbal bullshit is easy for morons like you.
Let's see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%. That is what supposedly happened to the north tower. But no engineering school has done it in NINE YEARS.
Isn't that interesting?
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr No that's not interesting.
What is interesting is how crazy people like you think they are normal. My Dad has Alzheimers but if you tell him that he was he denies it in the same way you deny the fact that you are stupid.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 So build a physical model that can completely collapse. What is stopping you or any engineering school from doing it?
The Laws of Physics do not care about sanity or name calling.
It is typical and boring that people who can't do the physics need to resort to name calling. Purdue created a simulation that they claim is scientific but the core columns don't move due to the plane impact. Great Physics! Very scientific!
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr LOL
No thanks. Tell us how strong each floor was and how much weight was applied to each floor and then tell us why you think that floors that are having their connection strength greatly exceeded should not fail. Once you can do this, I will get started on the model.
Second, why don't you tell us why you think the core columns still stood up to the impact area after the floors and outer walls collapsed?
Your reply should not be excuses or requests for models.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Who cares about the floors? Dummies that BELIEVE in the collapse focus on the floors and ignore THE CORE. There were 47 columns in the core and they were connected by horizontal beams at every level. But information about those horizontal beams has disappeared. I have never found a diagram of how they were laid out in the core.
How many tons of steel were on each LEVEL in the core. Why hasn't the NIST told us that? Why doesn't Richard Gage ask about it?
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 Who said the core columns stood up to the impact area?
You are the first I have ever heard make THAT CLAIM. Provide a link.
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "provide a link"
You can see them still standing a short time before they collapse in all the videos on Youtube. Apparently this obvious event missed your dubious analysis skills.
"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."
~NIST FAQS~
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 With that statement in hand, we know that the full vertical load carrying capacity of columns was not resisting collapse as all you dipshits seem to think because you have less mechanical skills than a drunken chimp.
The building can be thought of columns with floors spanning in between these columns. When the top begins to fall, all that resists collapse are the connections that hold the floors to the columns.
Get it?
No of course you don't.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 So no link to saying THE SPIRE came up to the impact point. Just another nitwit making claims he can't support & dishing out what he thinks are insults. You have to substitute ego for brains.
The core had beams spanning between the columns but the NIST can't provide a diagram of them. They can't specify the tons of steel on every level. Or the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.
And in NINE YEARS no engineering school can build a collapse model.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr You're just generating random phrases now. Someone takes the time to explain something to you.
Rather than make an effort to understand it, you feel threatened by it, come up with a knee-jerk, nonsensical response and then repeat your demand that your claim must be true since no engineering built a model (to your specifications) that failed.
When did you realize that you know everything and are always right?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr The statement I posted came from the NIST FAQ's. Notice how even though I told you where you could go to find the information, you claim that you were not provided with such data?
In other words controversy only exists because you choose to randomly shun the information that does not support your fantasies.
You are after anything but the Truth because you lack the technical skills to understand it.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 ROFL
Notice that YOU SAID that the remains of the core went up to the impact area but the information you quoted does not support that. The impacts were at 81 for the south and 94 for the north tower. So you came here to advertise that you talk bullshit.
Can you read?
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "ROFL"
Yeah right.
At what point in your life did you realize that you know everything and that anyone who disagrees with anything you say or believe is nothing but wrong?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 You come here & throw around insults & then MAKE A CLAIM that your own source demonstrates that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! Then you want to complain about my disagreeing with you.
You CLAIMED something that I never heard anybody claim before. You think I am surprised that it was WRONG?
LOL
Notice that NO ONE has built a physcal model that can collapse.
Skyscrapers hav to hold themselves up. The designers have to determine how to distribute the steel & concrete.
.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "Notice that NO ONE has built a physcal model that can collapse"
Notice that you are making is called an "Argument from Ignorance".
How do you rationalize core columns still standing after the floors and outer walls had collapsed while claiming the full vertical support capacity of the columns resisted collapse?
If you are unable to answer this question why not just say that it's beyond your technical skills to do so instead of inventing conspiracy theories?
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 {{{ How do you rationalize core columns still standing after the floors and outer walls had collapsed while claiming the full vertical support capacity of the columns resisted collapse? }}}
If the buildings were destroyed by something other than gravitational collapse then your question is irrelevant. The purpose of the model is to show that NO PERMANENTLY SELF SUPPORTING STRUCTURE could be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "The purpose of the model is to show that NO PERMANENTLY SELF SUPPORTING STRUCTURE could be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less."
This is like saying that any gun of any size and caliber should be able to penetrate 1/4 thick steel plate I.E. the mechanics of the collapse or of the structure do not matter.
It's nothing more than you coming up with your own fake science in order to support your fantasy.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 {{ "Notice that NO ONE has built a physcal model that can collapse"
Notice that you are making is called an "Argument from Ignorance". }}
So you can quote something and pretend it is intelligent. The NIST can't tell us the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers so ignorance is unavoidable. At least I am aware of the ignorance. You can BELIEVE the Impossible because you can't build a structure that would collapse regardless of whether or not it is like a building.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "The NIST can't tell us the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers"
This question does not make sense. It would net annoying glares from any engineer that was asked such a question because it's vague and meaningless. Clearly the person that would ask such a question has no clue what they are even asking for.
Anything you want to know about the building is readily available in the design prints which are public record.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr You notice how your "model" does not even remotely mechanically represent the WTC's or buildings in general?
You don't think this matters, that is why you are stupid and stupidity is the reason you're a Truther.
You invent conspiracy theories to fill in the wide gaps in your basic knowledge of the world around you.
Now that's LOL worthy.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 {{{ You notice how your "model" does not even remotely mechanically represent the WTC's? }}}
Whether or not it is a building is irrelevant. The washers have MASS. The paper loops must be strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD of the MASS against gravity. Collapsing those supports requires ENERGY. The only source of energy is the KINETIC ENERGY of the falling MASS therefore it DECELERATES due to the ENERGY LOSS.
The WTC columns had to be destroyed or collapse would arrest.
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "The WTC columns had to be destroyed or collapse would arrest"
Then why were signifigant portions of the core still standing after the floors and outer walls had collapsed?
If you are unable to answer this question then simply say "I don't know". Don't make shit up or type "ROFL"
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@flanksteak2 {{{ You notice how your "model" does not even remotely mechanically represent the WTC's or buildings in general? }}}
So what is stopping YOU or anyone else from building a better model that can completely collapse?
Could it be The Laws of Physics?
ROFL
You can't even find links to support your own silly claims so you need to change subject. LOL
psikeyhackr 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr "So what is stopping YOU or anyone else from building a better model that can completely collapse?"
Lack of interest. A 5 year old can understand that the only thing resisting collapse were the floor-to-column connections and that's why the core columns stood standing after the floors and outer walls collapse.
Only Truthers like yourself think that the floor assemblies are capable of holding up the entire weight of the building.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@psikeyhackr That is akin to claim the branches of a tree are just as strong as the trunk. In other words you think the branches of the tree can hold up just as much weight as the trunk itself.
See, if you actually read what I am telling you and make an effort to understand then you might be able to understand but all you are worried about is claiming you are right.
You have a Superiority Complex.
flanksteak2 8 months ago
@NWOiAM the point is, that it's a structure that's 7 times higher than it's width all made from the same material. In fact the tower were built with massive tapered (got thicker the lower down one went) columns that the base were almost 53" of solid steel (the larger of the two core columns used.
and 240 perimeter columns) -all falling through themselves? all that undamaged structure below the crash zones>? And what about Newton's 3rd Law? *watch the vids by David Chandler (u'l learn afew things
winston2015 10 months ago
Ahha, dislikes has gone from 3 to 4 but no comment was added.
So where is his model that can completely collapse? The funny thing about physics is that it is incapable of caring what people do and do not like.
psikeyhackr 11 months ago
@psikeyhackr Dislikes to 5 on 4/8/11 and no comment.
.
psikeyhackr 11 months ago
@psikeyhackr Ah ha, likes have gone from 10 to 11. There are some non-idiots on the planet. LOL
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
@psikeyhackr Dislikes is up to 6 now and another gutless intellectual wonder has not provided an explanation.
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
@psikeyhackr Damn, I'm getting unpopular. Dislikes up to 7.
But after NINE YEARS the people who claim to know physics can't come out and say the collapse was impossible without assistance now can they? When are they going to build a model that can completely collapse though?
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
@psikeyhackr Likes have gained again, up to 12.
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
@psikeyhackr Likes up one more, 13
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
@psikeyhackr I'm on a roll, 14 twice as many likes as dislikes. Maybe I should run for president.
psikeyhackr 9 months ago
Nice demonstration. I still have to give the benefit of the doubt to Bazant et al, i.e., it is possible that the towers could collapse as he describes, i.e., if the mass stayed centered, which it did not, the collapses could have progressed. Not only did the mass not stay centered, a significant portion of the ST core survived the initial collapse and then disintegrated about ten seconds later. Very odd. And the forensic evidence is gone.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey Actually "the" forensic evidence is not gone.
DuRound2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DuRound2 Really? "However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin." NCSTAR1. This statement is made twice in NCSTAR1. It is repeated in NCSTAR1A. Let's say your right and NIST is wrong, where is the forensic evidence?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@DuRound2 Only 95% of it is gone.
The NIST says there was 200,000 tons of steel in the 2 towers. How much is still locatable in the US?
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr Many many tons. I do not know how many. I think its above 35 tons.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 35 tons is what percentage of 200,000?
1/6th of 1/10th of 1% and you call that "many, many"? ROFL
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr Yes, its more than 35 tons. I do not know how much more. It might be hundreds of tons. But they did not keep it all. There is no need to keep it all. There is absolutely no point to that.
Twoofers have this weird mindset that every stick and every dust particle needed to be saved. That we should build another whole world trade center to store the old trash of the previous world trade center.
INSANE. There is no reason to do that. We have plenty of forensic evidence.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr Let me put it to you this way
How much does a fingerprint weigh as a fraction of the human body weight? How much does a footprint weigh? Or a blood spatter?
Forensic evidence is not valued by weight. There is plenty of forensic evidence saved from the WTC. Plenty.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 That is SO BRILLIANT. The purpose of having the steel is to determine the cause of the destruction of the buildings. How many causes of death can be determined from a fingerprint? A blood spatter might if there was enough blood.
Another attempt to compare animate with inanimate objects. Buildings don't move to leave footprints & don't bleed. What does it take to remove an entire skeleton though? The skeleton of the WTC was destroyed.
Care to provide another ingenious response?
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr You don't need every piece of steel to determine that. Just like you don't need a whole body to determine that someone has died. The cause of death for a person can sometimes be determined by just one cell. Often, even if the cause of death is a macro cause, you only need a very small fraction of the body to determine the cause. A clogged artery may be only 1 inch long. A bullet wound may only cover a tiny fraction of the body volume. And pictures would be all you need.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr The point is.. there is no need to keep all that metal. Just is no need for it. People with far more years of engineering and forensic investigative skills have than you have went over the wreckage very very carefully.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 Unless of course analyzing a lot of the metal could PROVE a global collapse was impossible. But then grade school physics proves that.
sci.tech-archive (dot) net/Archive/sci (dot) physics/2009-04/msg00748 (dot) html
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr The weird thing is, you actually believe that makes sense.
It doesn't. Among other reasons, it is clear that there was a global collapse because the buildings have collapsed. Ego: Possible.
But there are other ways this does not make sense. You do not need ALL of it to prove one way or the other -- if the evidence is there, and if there is no evidence from the rubble proving this (and there won't be) having all of it does not help.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 Neither you nor anyone else has built a physical model that can be collapsed by the fall of its top 15% and I am supposed to be impressed by what YOU SAY does and does not make sense? NOT!
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about TALK. Build a model that can collapse.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr That is false. I have built one. I told you that.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 And provided what evidence that it was not some house of cards crap?
Your word means so much to me. LOL
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr Well, you see you keep moving the goalposts You said that it was not possible to build a structure that would collapse under its own weight. You said it was impossible. Then when I did it you objected to the materials I used.
But this is really irrelevant compared with the fact that you have not built a model that has ANYTHING to do with the WTC. There is no reasonable way to compare it.. as you admit... yet you do compare anyway.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 {{{ Then when I did it you objected to the materials I used. }}}
Did you post a video of a collapsing structure that you built? I didn't see it.
Do the cards in a house of cards get DAMAGED in the collapse? Can it be rebuilt with the same cards?
The paper loops in my model get CRUSHED. To rebuild it I must replace the loops. If you think being deliberately obtuse in order to talk a lot of rhetorical trash is intelligent that is your business.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr No.. I didn't think I needed to. You accepted very quickly that a building made of soap foam and washers would easily collapse under its own weight. I don't have it any more.
It was not a house of cards. It was washers supported by foam.. and when it was collapsed it was a total mess. totally destroyed.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 I completely forgot the soap foam because it is even more STUPID than a house of cards.
The structure must be able to support its own weight without collapsing before the top portion is dropped on the rest. This entire issue it about the WTC towers. They stood for THIRTY YEARS. I left my model up for THREE DAYS before I did the drop. If your soap bubbles wouldn't last 30 seconds then they are totally irrelevant and TOO DUMB to discuss.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr The only reason it is stupid is because it shows that you are wrong -- a structure that collapses under its own weight is possible.
Here's the bottom line: You want to compare this model to the WTC -- but it has no reasonable comparison. Its too strong and it is not modeling the collapse correctly.
You then say it is impossible to build a structure that collapses under its own weight, but you are wrong about that.
You are wrong over and over. And you know it.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 You have to build it for it to collapse.
Let's see you build it. ROFL
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr Why? So you can just deny it anyway? The ONLY way that I will put it on youtube... is if, in advance, you agree that you will stop making the claim that it is impossible to build a structure that collapses under its own weight AND if you will agree that your video has nothing to do with the WTC.
If you do those things, then I will put it on youtube.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 I posted this 2 days ago.
"Neither you nor anyone else has built a physical model that can be collapsed by the fall of its top 15% and I am supposed to be impressed by what YOU SAY does and does not make sense? NOT!
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about TALK. Build a model that can collapse."
I would not have built the model if it had nothing to do with the WTC.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr You know my terms. You must agree that you will stop making that claim and you must agree that your video has nothing to do with the WTC because it is miscontructed -- as you put it "defective".
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 I agree you are an idiot for saying what I have to agree to.
You are incapable of making a self supporting model that can be collapsed by its top 15%. That is just a matter of how reality works. But it is a problem that all people claiming to know physics have to deal with. Physics will not change and 9/11 won't go away.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr So, in other words, you want me to run around, make a video of my work and leave yourself an out to behave exactly as you have done in the past -- deny evidence.
I see no reason to go to any effort to education you when you *will* reject it and will not promise to change your views upon the presentation of evidence.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 Well until you make a model you have NO EVIDENCE so all you can do is expel hot air about how I will respond to any supposed evidence.
There is no reason to take you seriously as long as you talk about soap bubbles.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr I have made a model. So according to your requirements, I have evidence.
What you want me to do is make it again and then video tape it. Which I will do. But you must agree to my terms first.
I see no reason to go to any effort to educate you when you will just reject it and will not promise to change your views upon presentation of the evidence.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 I am not agreeing to anything. I don't care that much what you do.
Until I can see the video you have NO EVIDENCE, nothing but TALK.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr Right. You have no integrity. I'm fine with that. But because you do not have integrity I will not be going to extra work for you.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 Yeah right, having no integrity means not believing somebody claiming they built a tower with soap bubbles even though the objective is for the structure to support itself until the top 15% is dropped on the rest.
So lacking integrity is simply not being as dumb as you want.
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr No. Having no integrity means that even though you admit your model is grossly incorrect, you insist that others must believe it.
And when someone else offers other alternative PHYSICAL models.. you reject them before you see them and admit you will not consider the new evidence
That is your lack of integrity.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 {{{ even though you admit your model is grossly incorrect, }}}
Perfect demonstration of your integrity. I admitted that my model is not a tube-in-tube structure but it is demonstration a top down gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure.
It arrests! Where has anyone built one that is completely collapsed by its top 15%?
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr No... it is not that you admitted your model is not tube-in-tube. You said it was 'defective'. You have since then, edited your description so that you no longer describe your model as defective and instead call the scientist's model defective.
That is YOUR integrity. Altering your previous words.
DuRound2 1 year ago
@DuRound2 So you can accuse me of saying anything and claim I deleted it.
So everyone is supposed to believe I designed and built a model. Made a video recording, edit the recording and produce a sound track. Upload it and then claim it is defective.
Like that makes more sense than you talking nonsense when you can't explain what is wrong with it. ROFL
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr If I erred, I apologize and Maybe I did err.
But your model is defective. Highly defective.. as I have told you many times and explained in detail.
DuRound2 1 year ago
Well done
TonyLambregts 1 year ago
@flanksteak2 So let's see you build a self-supporting physical model that can be collapsed by its top 15%.
Otherwise all you can do is CLAIM there was an explanation even though Official Sources can't even tell us the distribution of mass. Talk is CHEAP.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr "So let's see you build a self-supporting physical model that can be collapsed by its top 15%.
Otherwise all you can do is CLAIM there was an explanation even though Official Sources can't even tell us the distribution of mass. Talk is CHEAP."
And we can see how the Truther mind works:
According to Psickeyhacker: "911 was an inside job unless you can build a model out of washers and paper that will collapse".
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@flanksteak2 And all you can do is put words in people's mouths.
I never said anything about an Ins----ob. Morons can't explain the Physics of the IMPOSSIBLE and leave out information necessary to do an accurate analysis so they can only play psychological name calling games against people pointing out their bullshit.
Engineering schools that expect people to pay $100,000+ for 4 years of EDUCATION can't build self supporting physical models that can be totally collapsed the the top 15%
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr "can't explain the Physics of the IMPOSSIBLE"
It's been explained but clearly 12 floors worth of live load breaking a floor that can only VERY conservatively hold 11 in even a static loading scenario is well beyond your reach of understanding.
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@flanksteak2 So let's see you build a physical model that can COMPLETELY COLLAPSE and demonstrate youR VAST UNDERSTANDING.
Ain't it curious that none of our Engineering Schools have done it in NINE YEARS?
.
psikeyhackr 1 year ago
@psikeyhackr "Ain't it curious that none of our En