Interesting 9/11 video

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Kittamaru, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Circular pseudo-logic. If you BELIEVE then you don't need to explain therefore you don't need the data to do the explaining.

    But if true it should be easy to make a collapsing model.

    So where is one after 13 years?

    But if the corpse died of poisoning before being shot in the heart then a murder investigator might want to know.
    psik
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    A variation of 4% that leads to differences in the second significant figure in the total mass.

    But all of this is a distraction by you. What I originally said was:
    You've blown this whole thing up from one portion of one sentence as a distraction from the point that once you know the dimensions of the box columns and the density of the steel, calculating its mass distribution with respect to the box columns is fairly trivial.

    The irony at this point is that what you don't seem to realize is that your insistence that the variation in the density of steels is irrelevant only actually serves to reinforce my point. Just for your benefit, that point, once again, is that once you know the dimensions of the box colums on each floor and the density of the steel used then calculating the mass of the box columns is trivial.

    I really don't care if you're impressed or not, to be perfectly frank with you. The point here isn't to impress you, but to illustrate to you that, at least considering the box columns the information you're after - the mass distribution of the steel, is trivially available.

    I didn't actually make any claim about the degree of the variation - other than that a 4% variation in mass affects the second significant figure.

    My recollection of such things is that it is not neccessarily that straight forward. But this is your distraction from my core point so I'm not really that interested in discussing it further.

    I don't recall saying anything about the crossbracing in those blueprints, what I did say, however, is that the at least address the dimensions of the box columns. I have to admit that I haven't looked at those blue prints in depth for some time so I'm not going to rule out that the details of the cross bracing is buried in there somewhere.

    Finally you get around to something resembling an answer to my original question. What would you expect? Would you expect them horizontal beams to be the same thickness at the base as at the top? Or would they be thicker?

    Feel free to stow the bile psikey - all I've done is ask you questions. If you don't like being asked questions in response to your statements or queries, you're in the wrong place.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Not according to Miracle Max: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9tAKLTktY0
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
  8. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    You are saying that finding the VOLUME of the steel is trivial.

    So far I have never seen anyone specify it that way and as I said there is almost no data on the horizontal beams in the core. So that alone would give an error of far more than 4%.

    psik
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    For the box columns, sure - all of the information you need: thickness, width, and length is specified in the blueprints.

    Take a moment to think about it, it should be obvious. How else would you come to a value for mass? Same goes for the concrete on each floor - we know the depth it was poured to, we know the area of the floors, and we know the surface area of the spaces that were cut out. Deriving the mass is equally trivial.

    I haven't addressed the horizontal beams in the core (yet) - other than to ask you what you think the distribution of their thicknesses would had to have been.

    You're still the only person that gives a shit about the 4% variation.
     
  10. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    YOU brought up the variation. I was indicating it was trivial.

    You had to prove something.

    psik
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I acknowledged the possibility of their existence because I did not have a value at hand for the density of the grade of steel used or the variation between the different grades of steel available, you're the one that made the mountain out of the molehill by cherry-picking half of a sentnce and using it as a distraction, just as you're doing now.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    psiky,
    why aren't you acknowledging the butt joints and resonance as valid hypothesis?
    both of the above, taken together, is probably what destroyed those buildings.
    the butt joints played a bigger role than resonance because they allowed the collapse to happen.
    once started, well you seen the result.
    i would almost bet on it.

    the above also explains why NIST, or anyone else, hasn't constructed a working model.
     
  13. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Is there such a thing as a hypothesis that is not valid?

    It is testing of the hypothesis that is the problem. You can test it to your heart's content. Knock yourself out.

    That does not mean I want to spend time discussing it with you before you have done the tests.

    Show me the videos of your experiments.

    psik
     
  14. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    ROFL Picking the opposite extremes of the data YOU provided is cherry picking? The difference was 4%. Is the computation too difficult for you? In my years of discussing this subject I cannot recall anyone bringing up the density of steel.

    Why don't you search the Internet for the volume of steel in the WTC? Let us know what you find.

    psik
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, selecting a sentence and presenting it out of context is cherry picking - which is what you have done. This whole 4% thing has been driven by you. It's been you that has focused on what you yourself characterize as an irrelevant triviality.

    Final warning to stop trolling - keep this up and I will close the thread and issue you an infraction or a ban. Maybe if you dropped the attitude you'd stop embarressing yourself.

    I made no claims about the significance of the variation, only acknowledged its existence, you have grabbed that acknowledgement with both hands and used it to try and distract from the point that I was actually making - that is, once you have the dimensions of the box columns and the cross beams deriving their mass is a trivial exercise that anyone with at least a highschool education could complete.

    Well, maybe that's your first problem - I know the likes of Grumpy have tried to discuss density with you on more than one occasion and you've just run roughshod over them for whatever reason.

    I did - I linked to the blueprints, the information is all there in black and white - except for the horizontal bars.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes.
    hypothesizing your car tire is low on air is the cause of the dead batteries in your flashlight is an example of an invalid hypothesis.

    i would be glad to.
    tell me how i can construct a scaled model that accurately models the resonance of WTC 1 &2.
    yes, i know.
    you want bombs.
    i really don't know what to tell you psiky.
    all i needed was to convince myself that it wasn't a CD.
    i did that by watching a number of CDs.
    i discovered the perimeter butt joints later.
    i realized resonance could have played a role only recently.
    wake up psiky, smell the roses.
     
  17. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    It's your hypothesis. It's your problem.

    Knock yourself out. Show me the video when you are done. I'll get popcorn.

    psik
     
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Density is different From Volume. For instance in building brick houses, the bricks themselves have to have a specific density based upon how many levels the walls that are being laid are going to stand when it's finished. The Density for bricks was originally using Newtons.

    In the case of Steel enforced infrastructures, it's possible for Higher density beams to be used for the lower levels and cheaper less dense beams to be used higher up. (The same can be said of reinforcing structures for load resistance) This can reduce the costs of building, however it can cause serious consequences should a building be hit by a natural disaster, fire, explosion or other unforeseen act of terror.

    There are numbers of examples of this that can be seen from various Japanese earthquakes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Collapse of the 6th storey of the 8-storey Kobe City Hall Annex building in the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake. The collapse was likely due to a hybrid lateral load-resisting system consisting of steel reinforced concrete (SRC) at lower floors and RC frame at upper floors (C. Scawthorn).

    Incidentally a computer model of how this building reacted was shown where the two different structure types "Wobble" at different rates, it's a bit like putting a Jelly(Jelo) on top of another one, on top of another one and shaking them. The translation of force isn't necessarily uniform like if you were just wobbling one plate alone.
     
  19. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    You came up with the numbers but the 4% is driven by me?

    If I had used any other numbers THAT YOU CAME UP WITH the percentage would have been even smaller and therefore more trivial.

    You can accuse me of trolling because YOU came up with silly crap involving the volume of steel. How can you do anything with density without knowing the volume?

    Do a search and see who first trolled us with steel density.

    psik
     
  20. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    As stated the problem with Volume in the instance you are talking about is how do you identify one Steel beam from other? Like I've said, they can be of different Densities and an overall volume isn't going to relate that. You'd have to look to see how many variations of density exist, to work out how many volumes you'd be looking for.
     
  21. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Google "density of steel".

    Guess what? The range is 4%. I would not bother doing anything with steel density in relation to the WTC problem. What was the weight of the horizontal beams in the core? What do you bet it was more than 4% of all of the steel in the building? But the NIST says the total for both buildings was "roughly 200,000 tons".

    What is "roughly"? More or less than 4%?

    psik
     
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Mod Note
    psikeyhackr has been issued an infraction for trolling... I'm sorry, but you cannot claim that how to build a physical scale model of the collapse is "none of your concern" when it has been the center of your entire argument for most of the thread
     
  23. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    What about the collapse of building 7?

    In anyones opinion here, does it appear to you to be a controlled demolition or not? Why or why not?
     

Share This Page